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

[Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini]

Hi ,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:55 PM
>To: Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>; 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 4:28 PM Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini
><muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:56 PM 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:
>
>...
>
>> >> > +     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