On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 07:47:31PM +0530, P L Sai Krishna wrote:
> +void arasan_tune_sdclk(struct sdhci_host *host)
static?
> +{
> + unsigned int clock;
> +
> + clock = host->clock;
Maybe combine the above two lines:
unsigned int clock = host->clock;
?
> +
> + /*
> + * As per controller erratum, program the SDCLK Frequency
> + * Select of clock control register with a value, say
> + * clock/2. Wait for the Internal clock stable and program
> + * the desired frequency.
> + */
> + host->ops->set_clock(host, clock/2);
The comment above says "wait for the internal clock stable" - I see
no wait in here. Does the code actually conform with the comment?
Please also use "clock / 2" as per coding style, thanks
> +
> + host->ops->set_clock(host, host->clock);
Maybe replace host->clock with clock?
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> index d622435..8b064cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> @@ -2043,6 +2043,11 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
> err = -EIO;
> }
>
> + if ((host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_BROKEN_TUNING) &&
> + (tuning_loop_counter >= 0) && (ctrl & SDHCI_CTRL_TUNED_CLK)) {
> + host->ops->tune_clk(host);
> + }
Do we need this "SDHCI_QUIRK2_BROKEN_TUNING" quirk at all? What's wrong
with:
if (host->ops->tune_clk && tuning_loop_counter >= 0 &&
ctrl & SDHCI_CTRL_TUNED_CLK)
host->ops->tune_clk(host);
here?
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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
