From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964828AbXCLAOF (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:14:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964817AbXCLAOF (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:14:05 -0400 Received: from usul.saidi.cx ([204.11.33.34]:39343 "EHLO usul.overt.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964828AbXCLAOE (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:14:04 -0400 Message-ID: <45F49B28.7090609@overt.org> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:13:28 -0700 From: Philip Langdale Reply-To: philipl@alumni.utexas.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Ossman CC: LKML , Carlos Aguiar , juha.yrjola@solidboot.com References: <45F33C2C.2090905@overt.org> <45F4934A.3030303@drzeus.cx> In-Reply-To: <45F4934A.3030303@drzeus.cx> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PATCH] MMC: Clean up low voltage range handling Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pierre Ossman wrote: > > We must not have the same specs. My simplified SD 2.0 physical spec > defines everything below bit 15 as reserved. I was a little unclear. Both specs define bit 7 as the low-voltage range but only the MMC spec defines the actual voltage. As such, there is no complete definition of a low voltage SD card. That's why I added the sanity check in the actual code. > Although this is a nice change, it confuses things to have two changes > in one commit. Could you split them up and base it on my "for-andrew" > branch? Yeah, I thought you'd think that :-) I'll post the two diffs shortly. Thanks, --phil