On 16/11/18 1:17 AM, Evan Green wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 6:36 AM Veerabhadrarao Badiganti
> <vbadigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>> index b001cf4..3c28152 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>>>>> @@ -524,6 +524,7 @@ struct sdhci_host {
>>>>> bool pending_reset; /* Cmd/data reset is pending */
>>>>> bool irq_wake_enabled; /* IRQ wakeup is enabled */
>>>>> bool v4_mode; /* Host Version 4 Enable */
>>>>> + bool vqmmc_enabled; /* Vqmmc is enabled */
>>>> I still don't love this, since it doesn't mean what it says. Everyone
>>>> else that has a vqmmc_enabled member uses it to actually mean "vqmmc
>>>> is enabled", but this doesn't mean that. For example, you don't clear
>>>> this when you disable the regulator in patch 3, so this would be set
>>>> even if the regulator is disabled, and you don't set it when sdhci
>>>> enables the regulator, so the regulator is on when this flag is not
>>>> set.
>>>>
>> Hi Evan
>>
>> This flag is meant to say "disable vqmmc *only* if it is enabled by host
>> driver (sdhci_host)".
>> If host driver doesn't enable vqmmc (enabled by platfrm driver) or if it
>> fails to enable it, then don't call disable vqmmc.
>>
>> Agree with you, the present name is not conveying its purpose.
>> It must be something like "vqmmc_enabled_by_host".
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any suggestions on this name.
>
> Yeah. Maybe vqmmc_pltfrm_controlled? Or vqmmc_enabled_by_platfrm as
> you suggested?
"pltfrm" doesn't mean anything here. Just change the comment "vqmmc enabled
in sdhci.c"
