On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:39:47AM -0700, Philip Rakity wrote: > > >From 2b436be109ad004e94a2b63f71f6bb8e00f9d3da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Philip Rakity <prak...@marvell.com> > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:34:17 -0700 > Subject: [RFC] remove quirk for broken clock - redundant since ops->max_clock > defined > > Are we okay moving in this direction? Patch is NOT tested since RFC -- does > compile. > > If we are moving away from using both quirks and host->ops to define > platform specific actions -- just use the host->ops operation to > get max_clock.
Again, I can only cite Pierre Ossman: On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote: | As I told Ben, I prefer if we stick to the standard as much as | possible. So no external info unless the register is set to zero. Your patch breaks that rule. Other than that, technically it looks OK. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmai...@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 -- 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
