From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1abBv2-0005I9-3Q for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 18:54:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:54:22 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20160302185422.GT9224@pengutronix.de> References: <1456398922-8253-1-git-send-email-s.christ@phytec.de> <20160301092232.GM9224@pengutronix.de> <20160301105605.GA4982@lws-christ> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160301105605.GA4982@lws-christ> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: i.MX: bbu-internal: call detect for mmc devices To: Stefan Christ Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:56:05AM +0100, Stefan Christ wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > > device_detect_by_name() should be safe to call, I don't think we need > > this additional flag. Just always call device_detect_by_name(). We have > > to drop the return value checking though. > > > > In fact we have the following patch in one of our internal customer > > trees, this should be suitable for your issue, right? > > Yep. These two lines of code are sufficent for our use case ;-) Here is my: > > Tested-by: Stefan Christ > > Will you apply that patch to master? As it's not a regression or serious bug I applied it to next and not to master. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox