Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:58:02 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] mmc: sdhci-pltfm: Do not use parent as the host's device | From | Ulf Hansson <> |
| |
On 11 August 2014 11:32, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > On 11 August 2014 11:15, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 10:07 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 8 August 2014 18:36, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> wrote: >>> > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 15:23 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote: >>> >> The code selecting a device for the sdhci host has been >>> >> continuously tweaked (4b711cb13843f5082e82970dd1e8031383134a65 >>> >> "mmc: sdhci-pltfm: Add structure for host-specific data" and >>> >> a4d2177f00a5252d825236c5124bc1e9918bdb41 "mmc: sdhci-pltfm: dt >>> >> device does not pass parent to sdhci_alloc_host") while there >>> >> does not seem to be any reason to use platform device's parent >>> >> in the first place. >>> >> >>> >> The comment saying "Some PCI-based MFD need the parent here" >>> >> seem to refer to Timberdale FPGA driver (the only MFD driver >>> >> registering SDHCI cell, drivers/mfd/timberdale.c) but again, >>> >> the only situation when parent device matter is runtime PM, >>> >> which is not implemented for Timberdale. >>> >> >>> >> Cc: Chris Ball <chris@printf.net> >>> >> Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org> >>> >> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >>> >> Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org >>> >> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org >>> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> >>> >> --- >>> >> >>> >> This patch is a part of effort to remove references to platform_bus >>> >> and make it static. >>> >> >>> >> Chris, Anton, Ulf - could you please advise if the assumptions >>> >> above are correct or if I'm completely wrong? Do you know what >>> >> where the real reasons to use parent originally? The PCI comment >>> >> seems like a red herring to me... >>> > >>> > Can I take the silence as a suggestion that the change looks ok-ish for >>> > you? >>> >>> Sorry for the delay. I suppose this make sense, but I really don't >>> know for sure. >>> >>> I guess we need some testing in linux-next, to get some confidence. >> >> Would you take it into -next then? Unless I'm completely wrong there >> should be no impact on any in-tree driver... > > I will take it; though I think it's best to queue it for 3.18 to get > some more testing.
This patch causes a compiler warning, could you please fix it.
Kind regards Uffe
| |