RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for Keem Bay SOC

[Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the feedback. I replied inline

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:56 PM
>To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx>;
>Hunter, Adrian <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>; Sudeep Holla
><sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>; Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mmc
><linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-
>kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
>kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai
><lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@xxxxxxxxx>; Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad
>Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@xxxxxxxxx>; Arnd Bergmann
><arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for
>Keem Bay SOC
>
>On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> On 06. 10. 20 17:55, muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>...
>
>> > +             /*
>> > +              * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure
>> > + changed voltage
>
>like a final
Noted. Done the changes
>
>> > +              * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
>> > +              */
>
>...
>
>> > +             /*
>> > +              * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure
>> > + changed voltage
>
>Likewise.
Noted. Done the changes
>
>> > +              * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
>> > +              */
>
>...
>
>> > +     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;?
Can I embedded together with UHS patch?
>
>...
>
>> > +     if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "intel,keembay-sdhci-5.1-sd")) {
>> > +             struct gpio_desc *uhs;
>> > +
>> > +             uhs = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs",
>> > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>>
>> I can't see change in dt binding to record uhs gpio.
>>
>>
>> Better
>> sdhci_arasan->uhs_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs",
>> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>>
>> then you can avoid uhs variable.
>
>Actually it's readability vs. additional variable. It was my suggestion to have a
>variable to make readability better.
>Are you insisting on this change?
>
>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko