On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:56:07PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>> static inline void sdhci_update_clock(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> @@ -2939,10 +2952,12 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK)
>> host->timeout_clk = mmc->f_max / 1000;
>
> Since max_discard_to calculation below will not happen for
> SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK case, does it still make sense to
> keep the above code?
>
Right, i missed to remove it.
Will update in v2.
> Or put it in the other way, if we keep the above code and do not make
> the change below, will there be any problem besides the max_discard_to
> initialization plays for nothing?
>
> All in all, I'm just confused why we keep the above code and make the
> change below at the same time.
>
THe max_discard_to should be dynamically updated for
SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK
when changing the clock, so we can remove above lines.
Regards
Dong Aisheng
> Shawn
>
>>
>> - if (host->ops->get_max_timeout)
>> - mmc->max_discard_to = host->ops->get_max_timeout(host);
>> - else
>> - mmc->max_discard_to = (1 << 27) / host->timeout_clk;
>> + if (!(host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK)) {
>> + if (host->ops->get_max_timeout)
>> + mmc->max_discard_to = host->ops->get_max_timeout(host);
>> + else
>> + mmc->max_discard_to = (1 << 27) / host->timeout_clk;
>> + }
>>
>> mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ | MMC_CAP_ERASE | MMC_CAP_CMD23;
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.2.rc3
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
