Hi Chris On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 24 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > I tried to keep this binding similar to others, that I proposed in "mmc: > > add DT bindings for more MMC capability flags." Actually, the above is > > indeed wrong, I would call it "cap-sdio-irq." And in that patch I tried to > > keep binding names resembling as closely as possible respective MMC_CAP_* > > flags. I think, it would have been better if "enable-sdio-wakeup" and > > "keep-power-in-suspend" were also named, following the same rule, but it's > > too late now. Anyway, I'm not too concerned about the names. We can use > > "enable-sdio-irq" too if you like. > > I see. Okay, let's go with your proposed cap-* for each MMC_CAP_*, and > the pm_caps can stay as they are. Thanks, let's do that. But in fact, in a recent discussion it has been pointed out to me, that this property +- toshiba,mmc-cap-sdio-irq : SDIO IRQ signalling should be used, if + supported by the hardware, i.e. set MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ if + TMIO_MMC_SDIO_IRQ is also set should be common for all MMC drivers: it should be possible to decide per SD interface, whether SDIO IRQ signalling should be enabled. What do you think? Shall we add a global "cap-sdio-irq" DT property instead of a toshiba-specific one? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
