On 07. 10. 20 10:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06. 10. 20 17:55, muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure changed voltage
>
> like a final
>
>>> + * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
>>> + */
>
> ...
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure changed voltage
>
> Likewise.
>
>>> + * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
>>> + */
>
> ...
>
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>
>> nit: I got this but as I see 3 lines below maybe would be better to use
>> it everywhere but it can be done in separate patch.
>
> In that case I think it would be better to have that patch first. It
> make follow up code cleaner.
>
> ...
>
>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "intel,keembay-sdhci-5.1-sd")) {
>>> + struct gpio_desc *uhs;
>>> +
>>> + uhs = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>>
>> I can't see change in dt binding to record uhs gpio.
>>
>>
>> Better
>> sdhci_arasan->uhs_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs",
>> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>>
>> then you can avoid uhs variable.
>
> Actually it's readability vs. additional variable. It was my
> suggestion to have a variable to make readability better.
> Are you insisting on this change?
I understand that it is just about preference. I would use it directly
not to deal with it. If your preference is via variable I am fine with
it too.
Thanks,
Michal
