Hi Robert,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:37 PM Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - if (machine_is_em_x270()) {
> > - err = gpio_request(GPIO95_MMC_WP, "MMC WP");
> > - if (err) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "can't request MMC write protect: %d\n",
> > - err);
> > - goto err_gpio_wp;
> > - }
> > - gpio_direction_input(GPIO95_MMC_WP);
> > - } else {
> > + if (!machine_is_em_x270()) {
>
> Euh why the "not" in the condition ?
Because since I am deleting the first arm of the if()
condition, this is the else {} clause, so since I am switching
an else for an if, I need to invert the condition.
> > + if (!machine_is_em_x270())
> > gpio_free(GPIO38_SD_PWEN);
>
> Ditto.
Same reason.
> > @@ -775,8 +775,6 @@ static struct pxamci_platform_data magician_mci_info = {
> > .ocr_mask = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> > .init = magician_mci_init,
> > .exit = magician_mci_exit,
> > - .gpio_card_detect = -1,
> > - .gpio_card_ro = EGPIO_MAGICIAN_nSD_READONLY,
> > .gpio_card_ro_invert = 1,
>
> Shouldn't the gpio_card_ro_invert be removed as well here ?
This has to be done later. The reason is that this is used in
to set up the inversion flag for the *host* from <mmc/host.h>:
#define MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH (1 << 10) /* Card-detect signal
active high */
#define MMC_CAP2_RO_ACTIVE_HIGH (1 << 11) /* Write-protect
signal active high */
If you think these flags are just adding to the confusion we
already have you are right, so in a follow-on patch series
I am trying to get rid of them.
In a way this host flag has no semantic effect after these
patches, but it is a different "technical step" so it needs
to be another patch.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
