Hi ,
>-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> >Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:55 PM >To: Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini <muhammad.husaini.zulki...@intel.com> >Cc: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com>; Hunter, Adrian ><adrian.hun...@intel.com>; Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com>; Ulf >Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org>; linux-mmc <linux-...@vger.kernel.org>; >linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org>; Linux Kernel >Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai ><lakshmi.bai.raja.subraman...@intel.com>; Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie ><wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.moha...@intel.com>; Arnd Bergmann ><a...@arndb.de> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for >Keem Bay SOC > >On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:28 PM Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini ><muhammad.husaini.zulki...@intel.com> wrote: >> >From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> >> >Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:56 PM On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:38 >> >AM Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> >> >wrote: >> >> On 06. 10. 20 17:55, muhammad.husaini.zulki...@intel.com wrote: > >... > >> >> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >> >> >> >> nit: I got this but as I see 3 lines below maybe would be better to >> >> use it everywhere but it can be done in separate patch. >> > >> >In that case I think it would be better to have that patch first. It >> >make follow up code cleaner. >> I want to get some clarification here. > >> Do I need a separate patch for this struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;? > >It should be a separate patch and better your series starts with it, so it >won't >interfere with new code. > >> Can I embedded together with UHS patch? > >Better to avoid merging orthogonal things together in one change. Noted. Thanks 😉 > >-- >With Best Regards, >Andy Shevchenko
