[PATCH] mmc: move regulator handling to core
Adrian Hunter
adrian.hunter at nokia.com
Thu Dec 3 15:12:36 EST 2009
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
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list