From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:40:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: add a function to get regulators, supplying card's power Message-Id: <87fw9zzh1n.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> List-Id: References: <4FD84DAA.30201@stericsson.com> In-Reply-To: (Guennadi Liakhovetski's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:28:22 +0200 (CEST)") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Ulf Hansson , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" , Adrian Hunter , Philip Rakity , Ulf Hansson , Magnus Damm , Mark Brown Hi, On Wed, Jun 13 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> > +struct mmc_supply { >> > + struct regulator *vmmc; /* Card power supply */ >> > + struct regulator *vqmmc; /* Optional Vccq supply */ >> > +}; >> >> I believe your intention is to provide this functionality for the host drivers >> as the common way of handling card regulators. Then, I would suggest to >> include these two new regulators in the mmc_host struct, instead of having >> this in a separate struct, which then also needs to be handled by every host >> driver. > > I have no strong preference about this. Having an additional struct is how > I interpreted Mark's proposal: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/14624/focus876 > > but I'm also fine with putting it in mmc_host. Chris, what's your > preference? I think Mark was just trying to help with your observation that the changes are messy. I don't see any compelling reasons to avoid adding these to mmc_host -- does anyone else feel strongly? So, I'd say go ahead and post an updated patch that uses mmc_host, and we can see if Mark has any thoughts. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child