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

[Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>]

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

Cheers!

Pawel