Hi, On 1 July 2016 at 04:37, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com> wrote: > On 07/01/2016 04:28 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Meteusz, >> >> On 30 June 2016 at 12:18, Mateusz Kulikowski >> <mateusz.kulikow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 29.06.2016 05:27, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> >>>> On 25 June 2016 at 14:57, Matt Corallo <li...@bluematt.me> wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Corallo <g...@bluematt.me> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 3 ++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>>> index aabfc71..eba20f0 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>>> @@ -1734,7 +1734,8 @@ int mmc_init(struct mmc *mmc) >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DM_MMC >>>>> struct mmc_uclass_priv *upriv = dev_get_uclass_priv(mmc->dev); >>>>> >>>>> - upriv->mmc = mmc; >>>>> + if (upriv) >>>>> + upriv->mmc = mmc; >>>>> #endif >>>>> if (mmc->has_init) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.1.4 >>>> >>>> Can you please add a commit message explaining why this is needed and >>>> what it fixes? How can mmc_init() be called before the MMC device is >>>> there? Is this related to this patch? >>>> >>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/640735/ >>> >>> It's related in a way that it fixed crash of dragonboard before I submitted >>> my patch :) >>> >>> Not sure if it meant to fix dragonboard or some other board. >>> >>> Although - imho - it's nice to make check like that.. or at least some kind >>> of assert. > > I have just one question..Maybe it's not related with this patch.. > But i saw other driver did that upriv->mmc is assigned to mmc in each drivers. > > What's difference with "upriv->mmc = mmc" in mmc.c? > > ./drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:972: upriv->mmc = priv->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/mmc.c:1606: upriv->mmc = mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/mmc-uclass.c:91: return upriv->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/msm_sdhci.c:147: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/omap_hsmmc.c:830: upriv->mmc = mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c:114: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/socfpga_dw_mmc.c:110: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c:727: upriv->mmc = priv->mmc; > ./drivers/mmc/zynq_sdhci.c:52: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; > > Is it duplicated? > (I didn't see in more detail.) > > Best Regards, > Jaehoon Chung
I am actually not happy with how this is at present. It should be handled by a function call. If you'd like to look at this please do, otherwise I will take a pass at it. It should be clear at this point what we need. > >> >> An assert() would be fine with me. >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> _______________________________________________ >> U-Boot mailing list >> U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot >> >> >> > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
