Hi Andy, Thanks for the feedback. I replied inline
>-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:56 PM >To: Michal Simek <[email protected]> >Cc: Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini <[email protected]>; >Hunter, Adrian <[email protected]>; Sudeep Holla ><[email protected]>; Ulf Hansson <[email protected]>; linux-mmc ><[email protected]>; linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm- >[email protected]>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux- >[email protected]>; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai ><[email protected]>; Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad >Zainie <[email protected]>; Arnd Bergmann ><[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for >Keem Bay SOC > >On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM Michal Simek <[email protected]> >wrote: >> On 06. 10. 20 17:55, [email protected] wrote: > >... > >> > + /* >> > + * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure >> > + changed voltage > >like a final Noted. Done the changes > >> > + * is settled before and after turn on this bit. >> > + */ > >... > >> > + /* >> > + * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure >> > + changed voltage > >Likewise. Noted. Done the changes > >> > + * 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. I want to get some clarification here. Do I need a separate patch for this struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;? Can I embedded together with UHS patch? > >... > >> > + 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? > >-- >With Best Regards, >Andy Shevchenko
