Stefan Schmidt escreveu:
> Hello.
>
> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 13:01, Antonio Ospite wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:17:16 +0000
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> ++ int val = (bits == MMC_VDD_165_195) ? 6 : fls(bits) / 2 + 3;
>> Ok, the formula has been tested, and it works.
>
> Great, thanks for testing it out.
>
>> Just as a side-note, we have this call:
>> ezx_pcap_mmcsd_voltage((1 << vdd) & pdata->ocr_mask);
>> we shift here and then "unshift" the value with fls().
>> I don't know how much fls() costs, is it worth to avoid it?
>> If yes, I could make the needed changes.
>
> It could be a left over as we used fls() already before Daniel made the
> changes
> based on Eric comments. Daniel, your opinion on this?
Shift left and just after shift right again seems stupid. Please
fix this.
>
>> Ah, and is there a reason why we are not using msecs_to_jiffies() when
>> setting the detect_delay field in ezx_mci_platform_data? We have:
>> .detect_delay = 150 / (1000/HZ),
>
> Hmm, perhaps Daniel did just not know about it? Of course only a guess.
Eric Miao wrote:
> Why not just initialize this detect_delay within the ezx_mci_platform_data
> definition below? And thus avoid that static structure declaration above?
Using msecs_to_jiffies() on the declaration of ezx_mci_platform_data
leads to:
arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:199: error: initializer element is not constant
arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:199: error: (near initialization for
‘ezx_mci_platform_data.detect_delay’)
To make this simple, i think we should simply use:
.detect_delay = 15,
--
Daniel Ribeiro
