From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [RFC] remove quirk for broken clock - redundant since ops->max_clock defined Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:11:05 +0400 Message-ID: <20100928111105.GA20742@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <8C0FC31B-681F-4541-AD64-43578FC926F6@marvell.com> <23CB1625-7451-41BD-AD43-73C588A1593F@marvell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:40336 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221Ab0I1LLP (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:11:15 -0400 Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so1714256ewy.19 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <23CB1625-7451-41BD-AD43-73C588A1593F@marvell.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Philip Rakity Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:39:47AM -0700, Philip Rakity wrote: > > >From 2b436be109ad004e94a2b63f71f6bb8e00f9d3da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Philip Rakity > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:34:17 -0700 > Subject: [RFC] remove quirk for broken clock - redundant since ops->max_clock defined > > Are we okay moving in this direction? Patch is NOT tested since RFC -- does compile. > > If we are moving away from using both quirks and host->ops to define > platform specific actions -- just use the host->ops operation to > get max_clock. Again, I can only cite Pierre Ossman: On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote: | As I told Ben, I prefer if we stick to the standard as much as | possible. So no external info unless the register is set to zero. Your patch breaks that rule. Other than that, technically it looks OK. -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2