Re: [PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core

[Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@nokia.com>]

Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:27:39PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> gDaniel Mack wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c   |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> drivers/mmc/core/host.c   |    3 +++
>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c   |   28 ++++++++++++----------------
>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h   |    1 -
>>> drivers/mmc/host/pxamci.c |   20 ++++++++------------
>>> include/linux/mmc/host.h  |   10 ++++++----
>> What about arch/arm/mach-omap2/mmc-twl4030.c ?
> 
> Argh, missed that one. And this particular case doesn't fit to my
> modifications. I don't know the code well ...  We would need to
> have a struct mmc_host * in all the functions there calling
> mmc_regulator_{set,get}_ocr. Any idea how to resolve that?
> 

Pass it down from the omap_hsmmc driver.

>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/host.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/host.c
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/leds.h>
>>> #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
>>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>> #include "core.h"
>>> #include "host.h"
>>> @@ -154,6 +155,8 @@ void mmc_remove_host(struct mmc_host *host)
>>> 	mmc_remove_host_debugfs(host);
>>> #endif
>>> +	regulator_put(host->vcc);
>>> +
>> If the core is doing a 'regulator_put()' shouldn't it also be doing
>> a 'regulator_get()'?  Why not leave it to the drivers?
> 
> Yes, I can change the patch to do that, no problem. The major reason why
> I didn't put the regulator_get() to the mmc core is that I need to have
> the platform_device to obtain its name.
> 
> Daniel
> 
>