From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:02:06 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] mmc: Change board_mmc_getcd() signature. In-Reply-To: <4EDCA2DA.4000207@denx.de> References: <1323073424-16656-1-git-send-email-thierry.reding@avionic-design.de> <20111205100051.GA4935@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <4EDCA2DA.4000207@denx.de> Message-ID: <201112051202.06629.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > On 05/12/2011 11:00, Thierry Reding wrote: > > * Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> The new API no longer uses the extra cd parameter that was used > >>> to store the card presence state. Instead, this information is > >>> returned via the function's return value. board_mmc_getcd() > >>> returns -1 to indicate that no card-detection mechanism is > >>> implemented; 0 indicates that no card is present and 1 is > >>> returned if it was detected that a card is present. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding > >>> > >> > >> A silly question -- why do we need this change ? Can you explain > >> it in the changelog of V2 too? > > > > It's the first step in implementing card-detection. I discussed > > this with Andy and he came up with the idea that board_mmc_getcd() > > should really have had the mmc parameter as first argument in the > > first place instead of the cd parameter. > > Ok, I get it now. > > > Furthermore, the cd parameter is used inconsistently in individual > > implementations. After some discussion we came to the conclusion > > that the cd parameter wasn't required at all and the same > > information can be represented in the return value. The whole > > discussion is in this thread: > > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-November/110180.html > > > > It's not really a necessary change, but it makes board_mmc_getcd() > > much more consistent with other MMC-related functions. > > > > Perhaps this last sentence would be a good explanation to put in > > the v2 commit message? > > Ok, thanks - this explains much better which is your intention for the > patchset. It is also not bad to add a reference to the above thread. > > Best regards, > Stefano Babic Yep, and when/if submitting V2, also make a cover letter (while also adding the explanation to this patch's commit message). Thanks! M