From: Joel Cunningham <joel.cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx>
Update documentation for sdio_claim_irq to downgrade the wording
about doing recursive claims in an IRQ handler from 'must not' to
'should not'. This clarifies that recursive claims are supported,
but not the recommended (best) practice
Signed-off-by: Joel Cunningham <joel.cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c
index 7a2eaf8410a3..7ca7b99413f0 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c
@@ -277,8 +277,8 @@ static void sdio_single_irq_set(struct mmc_card *card)
*
* Claim and activate the IRQ for the given SDIO function. The provided
* handler will be called when that IRQ is asserted. The host is always
- * claimed already when the handler is called so the handler must not
- * call sdio_claim_host() nor sdio_release_host().
+ * claimed already when the handler is called so the handler should not
+ * call sdio_claim_host() or sdio_release_host().
*/
int sdio_claim_irq(struct sdio_func *func, sdio_irq_handler_t *handler)
{
--
2.14.1
--
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
