On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:20:38 -0400 Philip Langdale wrote: > > My understanding from the previous discussion was that SD 3.0 (and > presumably > a matching SDHCI 3.0) fully define the low voltage range. As such, a > controller > that is documented to conform to this spec, or is otherwise documented to > implement the functionality, can be safely allowed to run SD cards that > also > claim to support the bit. > I must have missed that part of discussion. If the voltage fully overlaps with the MMC definition, then I don't see the controllers having to be designed explicitly for SD 3.0. If not, then we probably need a new voltage bit for the hosts. In that case separating supporting from non-supporting should sort itself out easily. > Yes, there is a danger of pre 3.0 cards claiming to suport the low voltage > range, > but I think there's a credible chance that no such cards actually exist, > and if > they do, I think they're obscure enough to ignore - if they were a problem, > the > SD association would have had to abandon using the same bit as MMC uses. > Agreed. Btw, you really need to whip some sense into the line handling of your email client. :) Rgds -- -- Pierre Ossman WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end encryption.