On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> We should not call out to board code from drivers. With driver model,
> mmc_power_init() already has code to use a named regulator, but the
> legacy code path remains. Update the code to make this clear.
>
I don't like this patch as it described. (I will answer to your mail
in the other thread later)
Let me check more, possible it's okay to have.
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 15 +++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> index 72fc17716e..3cdf6a4f3b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
> @@ -1608,17 +1608,17 @@ static int mmc_send_if_cond(struct mmc *mmc)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_MMC
> /* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
> __weak void board_mmc_power_init(void)
> {
> }
> +#endif
>
> static int mmc_power_init(struct mmc *mmc)
> {
> - board_mmc_power_init();
> -
> -#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC) && defined(CONFIG_DM_REGULATOR) && \
> - !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_DM_REGULATOR) && !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
> struct udevice *vmmc_supply;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -1635,6 +1635,13 @@ static int mmc_power_init(struct mmc *mmc)
> return ret;
> }
> #endif
> +#else /* !CONFIG_DM_MMC */
> + /*
> + * Driver model should use a regulator, as above, rather than calling
> + * out to board code.
> + */
> + board_mmc_power_init();
> +#endif
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.12.2.816.g2cccc81164-goog
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
