From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: agressive clocking framework v9 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:40:21 +0100 Message-ID: <4CD7D395.8040804@stericsson.com> References: <43E4817426ED174AA81263BCECB4351D131D9D41BC@sc-vexch3.marvell.com> <041757E8-9FCD-4FA8-8079-7A3FC07E4038@marvell.com> <4CD7C4DB.7070105@stericsson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eu1sys200aog104.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.117]:34732 "EHLO eu1sys200aog104.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754179Ab0KHKki (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:40:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Philip Rakity Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , David Vrabel Philip Rakity wrote: > On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> - Card (including SDIO device) whitelisting. > > do not understand the term whitelisting .. please explain. The idea would be to have a database with ID:s for cards that may be gated. Any SDIO card not it this list would not be gated. >> - Host whitelisting - for the case where as gateable SDIO >> device is soldered to the bus. >> >> The first looks like big-ish so would be a separate patch, but a >> host flag for the latter like MMC_CAP_GATE_SDIO can easily be >> folded into a v10 of this patch. > > Nico was not in favor of this. He thought it best to have > the core/ layer handle this. My patch is indeed to the core? This was to be a flag for explicitly letting the core gate some specific hosts on the MMC bus, in the case where you (when defining platform data) already know that a gateable SDIO card was soldered hardly onto a certain host. Anyway, if we have such needs they can be fixed later. Yours, Linus Walleij