[...]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/core.h b/include/linux/mmc/core.h
> > > index ab19245e9..8ac4b0b52 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mmc/core.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mmc/core.h
> > > @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
> > > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > > -/*
> > > - * linux/include/linux/mmc/core.h
> > > - */
> >
> > It's okay to remove these lines. However, it should be a separate
> > patch - and please keep it outside of the UHS-II series, as it doesn't
> > belong here.
>
> Okay. I will put them back in the next version.
Yes, please.
> Should I create a patch for this rescovery?
If you want to remove these lines, that's fine by me. Although, then
send a separate patch for it.
[...]
> > > @@ -421,7 +442,7 @@ struct mmc_host {
> > > #define MMC_CAP2_CRYPTO 0
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > - struct sd_uhs2_caps uhs2_caps; /* SD UHS-II capabilities */
> > > + struct sd_uhs2_caps uhs2_caps; /* SD UHS-II host capabilities */
> >
> > If you prefer "host capabilities" over plain "capabilities", that's fine by me.
> >
> > However, please make this change as part of the patch that introduced
> > the code, earlier in the series.
>
> I did not change the variable name, I modified the comment just to
> remind me what
> the capability is used for. (host side or device side)
>
> Shall I do anything related to this comment change?
> If I revert to the old comment in the next version, should I create a
> separate patch for it?
I think it would be best to amend my original patch, to fix my mistakes.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
