On 19 March 2018 at 15:15, Cunningham, Joel <Joel.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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>
Thanks, applied for next!
Kind regards
Uffe
> ---
> 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
