On 07/01/2016 04:28 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Meteusz, > > On 30 June 2016 at 12:18, Mateusz Kulikowski > <mateusz.kulikow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 29.06.2016 05:27, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> On 25 June 2016 at 14:57, Matt Corallo <li...@bluematt.me> wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Corallo <g...@bluematt.me> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>> index aabfc71..eba20f0 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c >>>> @@ -1734,7 +1734,8 @@ int mmc_init(struct mmc *mmc) >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DM_MMC >>>> struct mmc_uclass_priv *upriv = dev_get_uclass_priv(mmc->dev); >>>> >>>> - upriv->mmc = mmc; >>>> + if (upriv) >>>> + upriv->mmc = mmc; >>>> #endif >>>> if (mmc->has_init) >>>> return 0; >>>> -- >>>> 2.1.4 >>> >>> Can you please add a commit message explaining why this is needed and >>> what it fixes? How can mmc_init() be called before the MMC device is >>> there? Is this related to this patch? >>> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/640735/ >> >> It's related in a way that it fixed crash of dragonboard before I submitted >> my patch :) >> >> Not sure if it meant to fix dragonboard or some other board. >> >> Although - imho - it's nice to make check like that.. or at least some kind >> of assert.
I have just one question..Maybe it's not related with this patch.. But i saw other driver did that upriv->mmc is assigned to mmc in each drivers. What's difference with "upriv->mmc = mmc" in mmc.c? ./drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:972: upriv->mmc = priv->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/mmc.c:1606: upriv->mmc = mmc; ./drivers/mmc/mmc-uclass.c:91: return upriv->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/msm_sdhci.c:147: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/omap_hsmmc.c:830: upriv->mmc = mmc; ./drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c:114: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/socfpga_dw_mmc.c:110: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c:727: upriv->mmc = priv->mmc; ./drivers/mmc/zynq_sdhci.c:52: upriv->mmc = host->mmc; Is it duplicated? (I didn't see in more detail.) Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > An assert() would be fine with me. > > Regards, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
