[PATCH 3/5] mmc: sdhci-pltfm: Do not use parent as the host's device

Ulf Hansson
2014-08-11T09:32:40Z

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 at vger.kernel.org
>> >> Cc: linuxppc-dev at 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.

Kind regards
Uffe