Hello Ulf,
On 01/30/2015 12:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> };
>> @@ -39,6 +42,11 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
>>
>> + if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk)) {
>
> This should be:
>
> if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk) && !pwrseq->clk_enabled) {
>
>
Oh, I thought that it was not possible to enter mmc_pwrseq_pre_power_on()
twice without a prior call to mmc_pwrseq_power_off() but I guess I didn't
read the MMC core code carefully...
>> + clk_prepare_enable(pwrseq->ext_clk);
>> + pwrseq->clk_enabled = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 1);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -50,6 +58,19 @@ static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
>> mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 0);
>> }
>>
>> +static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_off(struct mmc_host *host)
>> +{
>> + struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
>> + struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
>> +
>> + mmc_pwrseq_simple_set_gpios_value(pwrseq, 1);
>> +
>> + if (pwrseq->clk_enabled) {
>
> I changed this as well, but that was just to make code clearer.
>
> if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk) && pwrseq->clk_enabled) {
>
>
Yeah, if IS_ERR(pwrseq->ext_clk) then clk_enabled will always be false but I
agree that the change makes the code to be more consistent.
>>
>
> As I stated in the response to he coverletter for the patchset, this
> patch is applied for next with above changes.
>
> Thanks!
>
Thanks a lot for your help and for fixing these things!
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
Best regards,
Javier
--
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
