>> Hmm, to me, just using cpu_is_mx53() is more readable than introducing >> another layer of flags/quirks. > Hi Wolfram: > I discussed it with Richard Zhao before sending out these V3 patches. > As we know that there is not only mx53 has this issue, maybe some following > SOCs have this issue too. > So we make a decision that we introduce another flags/quirks to declare it > for all those SOCs that required this > mechanism in the end.
I agree with Richard here that a flag/quirk will be more generic than cpu_is_*(). Otherwise we may end up one day growing a big list of these cpu_is_*(). One other point to consider is the SoC stepping, as this might be fixed in later steppings, and keeping cpu_is_mx53() or cpu_is_mx53_stepping_b2_or_above() doesn't look very good in the driver code itself. -- 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
