On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:47:10AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 11:01, Wolfram Sang
> <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add documentation for mmc_hw_reset to make sure the intended use case is
> > clear.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > While working on this, I get the feeling this function should be renamed
> > to 'mmc_card_reset' or something similar. 'hw' is still confusing
> > because it could easily be the host controller, too. I volunteer to
> > prepare a patch if we can agree on a better name.
>
> You have a point. Although we also have mmc_sw_reset().
Ah, I didn't know that. Though, mmc_card_{hw|sw}_reset() sounds still
way better to me.
> Another thing that I would like to change is to make both of these
> functions take a struct mmc_card* as in-parameter, rather than the
> current struct mmc_host*.
>
> Not sure that it would completely solve the confusion, but at least it
> would be a little more clear.
Maybe if we do both, it will be really clear? :)
> > +/**
> > + * mmc_hw_reset - reset the card
> > + * @host: MMC host to which the card is attached
> > + *
> > + * Reset the remote card. This function is only for upper layers, like the
>
> Perhaps make it clear that it's a full (or hw) reset, not just a reset
> (as it could also be a soft reset). Moreover, I think you can skip
> "remote".
OK, will send V2 in a minute.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
