Hi Philip,
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 01:08:20PM -0700, Philip Rakity wrote:
> The change proposed by Richard Zhu for handling write protect uses
> only a callback.
>
> <snip>
> static int sdhci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc)
> {
> struct sdhci_host *host;
> unsigned long flags;
> int present;
>
> host = mmc_priv(mmc);
>
> if (host->ops->get_ro)
> return host->ops->get_ro(host);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>
> <end snip>
>
> What is the correct practice?
I think that the get_ro hook is reasonable in this case -- we're saying
that the host has a sufficiently weird WP setup that sdhci doesn't know
what we're supposed to do (unlike SDHCI_QUIRK_INVERTED_WRITE_PROTECT).
I'd be curious to hear what others think, though. Should we be simply
moving away from adding new quirks, or just limiting them to cases where
a full hook isn't warranted?
--
Chris Ball <c...@laptop.org> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
