On 22/08/17 14:13, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 August 2017 at 14:08, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> + void (*cqe_recovery_notifier)(struct mmc_host *, >> + struct mmc_request *); > > Normally we don't put callbacks in the struct mmc_host that someone > else than the host driver should assign - so this feels a bit upside > down. > > Is there any reason to why you didn't want to add a new API? Something > like mmc_cqe_recover(), which the host driver could call. That would make the host driver dependent on the block driver. There needs to be a function pointer, even if we wrap it in an API. -- 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
