From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: [PATCH resend 0/3] sdhci-pltfm: Few additions and enhancements Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:34:00 +0300 Message-ID: <20100316183400.GA24191@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Return-path: Received: from mail.dev.rtsoft.ru ([213.79.90.226]:48204 "HELO mail.dev.rtsoft.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754431Ab0CPSeE (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:34:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Vrabel , Richard =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6jfors?= , Pierre Ossman , Ben Dooks , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:11:00PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:55:30PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > Some hosts (e.g. as found in CNS3xxx SOCs) report wrong value in > > > CLOCK_BASE capability field, and currently there is no way to > > > force the SDHCI core to use the platform-provided base clock value. > > > > I don't think this needs a new quirk. Change the sdhci driver to check > > if the platform provides a value before reading the standard register. > > Well, Pierre once said that by default we should conform to the > SDHCI spec, and any diviations from the spec should be handled by > the quirks: > > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-02/msg03385.html > > Spec clearly states that base clock == 0 is the case when we should > fall back to the platform-provided clocks. No further comments, resending the patches... Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2