On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:08 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote:
> First, I thought I preferred this option, as it becomes clear of what > goes on. However I then realize, that it may not be worth it, because > in the end I guess the caller (sdhci), will not be able to deal with > error codes. For example, what would it do if it receives a -ENOTSUPP > from mmc_gpio_get_cd_nosleep()? Uffe, Yeah, that would end up looking more like my original RFC patch, where we just kind of assume the card is there (and therefore ignore the quirk) if we're not in a preemptible state. Sounds like I should make another spin this way, at least for consideration. Andy, Thanks for the review. I will incorporate your feedback into the next spin. -Evan
