On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:30 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:58 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Well, I don't like to bail out because this error is not fatal for basic
> > > > operations. How about releasing priv->pinctrl again with an additional
> > > > warning that pinctrl settings are broken and will prevent 1.8v modes?
> > > >
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > Hmm, from a mmc driver probe point of view, I don't quite share this approach.
> > >
> > > I would rather fail as it forces the DTB to be corrected immediately,
> > > rather than trusting some developer to look at a warning in a log. The
> > > point is, in such a case it may never get fixed, if the product is
> > > shipped with the wrong DTB.
> >
> > I could agree to this arguement, iff the only way pinctrl_select fails
> > is a DT misconfiguration. I am not sure if this is true right now, and
> > we can't be sure about the future. Or?
>
> Isn't "state_uhs" optional? So bailing out if it doesn't exist is wrong.
> "default" should be there, if the device node has pinctrl properties.
>
> renesas_sdhi_start_signal_voltage_switch() already handles fallback
> to 3v3 operation.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
Just ping this thread.
I am not clear about what is the conclusion of how to deal with the error?
Should I resend a new version of the patch?
Regards,
Chuhong
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
