On 9/03/20 12:53 pm, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 09:20 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> -static void xenon_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned char mode,
>>> - unsigned short vdd)
>>> -{
>>> - struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>>> - u8 pwr = host->pwr;
>>> -
>>> - sdhci_set_power_noreg(host, mode, vdd);
>>> -
>>> - if (host->pwr == pwr)
>>> - return;
>>> -
>>> - if (host->pwr == 0)
>>> - vdd = 0;
>>> -
>>> - if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vmmc))
>>> - mmc_regulator_set_ocr(mmc, mmc->supply.vmmc, vdd);
>>> -}
>>
>> This code is different. The commit message should explain why it is
>> equivalent. Has it been tested?
>
> Yes, I should've pointed it out. The rationale behind including sdhci-xenon and
> sdhci-pxav3 is based on xenon's original commit message (99c14fc360dbb):
>
> mmc: sdhci-xenon: add set_power callback
>
> Xenon sdh controller requests proper SD bus voltage select
> bits programmed even with vmmc power supply. Any reserved
> value(100b-000b) programmed in this field will lead to controller
> ignore SD bus power bit and keep its value at zero.
> Add set_power callback to handle this.
>
> I can't test it, but it felt to me as the implementation differences are only
> there as different people wrote the code. Ultimately, I'll be happy to drop
> them from the series if you feel it's too much of an assumption, I can see how
> the controllers could react badly to the ordering change. If not I can send a
> v3 with fixed commit messages.
We can wait a bit and see if anyone provides a Tested-by tag, otherwise
safer to drop it.
