On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 11:02:32AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote: > > What do you think about passing the ddr mode itself (MMC_1_8V_DDR_MODE) > > and having set_signaling_voltage() work out what voltage it needs to use > > to achieve that? I don't like passing the raw number around so much. > > hmmm > > concur about numbers and can pass the mode in. The concern I had was if this > function > ever needed to be more generic then wanted the voltage. Thought about using > the VDD > voltage defines but they are a range of values and not appropriate. Thoughts > ?
Ah, okay, makes sense. I don't know how likely it is that you'll need the SDHCI layer to tell you which signaling voltage to use in future -- if it doesn't seem likely now, I think passing the mode is probably sensible enough. > >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h > >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h > >> @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ > >> #define SDHCI_CAN_64BIT 0x10000000 > >> > >> #define SDHCI_CAPABILITIES_1 0x44 > >> +#define SDHCI_CAN_SDR50 0x00000001 > >> +#define SDHCI_CAN_SDR104 0x00000002 > >> +#define SDHCI_CAN_DDR50 0x00000004 > >> > > > > You could use the BIT(0..2) macros here. > > would prefer > 1<<0 > 1<<1 > 1<<2 > > you okay with this ? Yeah, that's also fine, either works. The only reason to prefer BIT() is that it saves you from writing the above without surrounding parens. Thanks, -- 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
