[PATCH 4/4] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Simplify init for twl6030 MMC card detect
Tony Lindgren
tony at atomide.com
Fri Mar 2 12:22:51 EST 2012
* Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com> [120301 21:38]:
> On Friday 02 March 2012 12:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap4panda.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap4panda.c
> >@@ -153,8 +153,8 @@ static struct omap2_hsmmc_info mmc[] = {
> > {
> > .mmc = 1,
> > .caps = MMC_CAP_4_BIT_DATA | MMC_CAP_8_BIT_DATA,
> >- .gpio_wp = -EINVAL,
> > .gpio_cd = -EINVAL,
> >+ .gpio_wp = -EINVAL,
>
> stray change.
Hmm I'd like to keep this change before this ordering gets copied
to ten other board files that we may have in testing-board for a while..
I'll add a comment to the patch description about that.
> >--- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> >+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> >@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > #include<linux/gpio.h>
> > #include<linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > #include<linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >+#include<linux/i2c/twl.h>
> > #include<plat/dma.h>
> > #include<mach/hardware.h>
> > #include<plat/board.h>
> >@@ -578,6 +579,32 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_gpio_free(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host)
> > gpio_free(host->gpio_cd);
> > }
> >
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_TWL4030_CORE
> >+static int omap_hsmmc_init_twl6030(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host)
> >+{
> >+ struct omap_mmc_platform_data *pdata = host->pdata;
> >+ struct omap_mmc_slot_data *slot =&pdata->slots[0];
> >+ int irq;
> >+
> >+ if (gpio_is_valid(host->gpio_cd) || host->id)
>
> I have a series, which I am asking Chris to pull, which completely
> gets rid of all host->id based hard-codings' in the driver.
> Isn't there a better way to do this than rely on the device instance?
Yes I was thinking about that too. I guess we need to pass some
flag in pdata for twl6030 card detect. I was thinking about using
the gpiochip_cd, but twl6030 is not gpio based card detect, so
a separate flag is better.
BTW, with -rc5, looks like re-inserting omap_hsmmc on omap4 fails
to detect any cards, and then fails to unload. This works on omap3
just fine. Any ideas why that would be?
Regards,
Tony
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list