Hi there, thanks for the review,
Le mardi 04 novembre 2014 à 13:32 -0500, Tom Rini a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Tom,
On 11/04/14 17:56, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power MMC: this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init function to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski contact@paulk.fr
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8 ++++++++ include/mmc.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c index 44a4feb..125f347 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c @@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev) } #endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */ +__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void) +{
- return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make this a void? Thanks!
There is v3 posted a while ago... We have also agreed on v4..
Note that v3 and v4 are the same, except that v3 didn't apply on top of master.
Yeah, oops, didn't delete these after catch-up. I'm still not sure we should continue adding more unchecked return values "just because".
I agree that we shouldn't have an unchecked return value. So we could either check the return value and print a warning, without aborting the init sequence (what Igor proposed initially) or just make this return void (what you both seem to agree on).
I'm fine with both solutions. I guess that enabling a regulator could fail (say, because of an i2c error), so there is still sense in returning int.
Let me know of what your definitive answer on this is. I'll make a new patchset probably this friday (I'm running on a very tight schedule until then).