On Mon, August 26, 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 26 August 2013 08:39, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > On Friday, August 23, 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> On 21 August 2013 14:42, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> >> > Currently there is no mmc_power_off() when resume failed.
> >> > Somehow, state from mmc_power_o
On 26 August 2013 08:39, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> On Friday, August 23, 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 21 August 2013 14:42, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
>> > Currently there is no mmc_power_off() when resume failed.
>> > Somehow, state from mmc_power_on() will be kept. This change
>> > makes a pair with i
On Friday, August 23, 2013, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 21 August 2013 14:42, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > Currently there is no mmc_power_off() when resume failed.
> > Somehow, state from mmc_power_on() will be kept. This change
> > makes a pair with its use in case of failure.
>
> Hi Seungwon,
>
> To
On 21 August 2013 14:42, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> Currently there is no mmc_power_off() when resume failed.
> Somehow, state from mmc_power_on() will be kept. This change
> makes a pair with its use in case of failure.
Hi Seungwon,
To be safe, we can not power off, even if a resume failures. The
r
Currently there is no mmc_power_off() when resume failed.
Somehow, state from mmc_power_on() will be kept. This change
makes a pair with its use in case of failure.
Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon
---
drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c |3 +++
drivers/mmc/core/sd.c |3 +++
drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c |
