[PATCH 3/5] mmc: sdhci-pltfm: Do not use parent as the host's device

[Ulf Hansson]

On 11 August 2014 11:32, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11 August 2014 11:15, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 10:07 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 8 August 2014 18:36, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 15:23 +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
>>> >> The code selecting a device for the sdhci host has been
>>> >> continuously tweaked (4b711cb13843f5082e82970dd1e8031383134a65
>>> >> "mmc: sdhci-pltfm: Add structure for host-specific data" and
>>> >> a4d2177f00a5252d825236c5124bc1e9918bdb41 "mmc: sdhci-pltfm: dt
>>> >> device does not pass parent to sdhci_alloc_host") while there
>>> >> does not seem to be any reason to use platform device's parent
>>> >> in the first place.
>>> >>
>>> >> The comment saying "Some PCI-based MFD need the parent here"
>>> >> seem to refer to Timberdale FPGA driver (the only MFD driver
>>> >> registering SDHCI cell, drivers/mfd/timberdale.c) but again,
>>> >> the only situation when parent device matter is runtime PM,
>>> >> which is not implemented for Timberdale.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cc: Chris Ball <chris at printf.net>
>>> >> Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton at enomsg.org>
>>> >> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
>>> >> Cc: linux-mmc at vger.kernel.org
>>> >> Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> This patch is a part of effort to remove references to platform_bus
>>> >> and make it static.
>>> >>
>>> >> Chris, Anton, Ulf - could you please advise if the assumptions
>>> >> above are correct or if I'm completely wrong? Do you know what
>>> >> where the real reasons to use parent originally? The PCI comment
>>> >> seems like a red herring to me...
>>> >
>>> > Can I take the silence as a suggestion that the change looks ok-ish for
>>> > you?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay. I suppose this make sense, but I really don't
>>> know for sure.
>>>
>>> I guess we need some testing in linux-next, to get some confidence.
>>
>> Would you take it into -next then? Unless I'm completely wrong there
>> should be no impact on any in-tree driver...
>
> I will take it; though I think it's best to queue it for 3.18 to get
> some more testing.

This patch causes a compiler warning, could you please fix it.

Kind regards
Uffe