From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1euLTn-00089M-9k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:06:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1euLTm-0003R3-Dv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:06:51 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::241]:43216) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1euLTm-0003Qx-5j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:06:50 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-x241.google.com with SMTP id a207so7466240oii.10 for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:06:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180309153654.13518-6-f4bug@amsat.org> References: <20180309153654.13518-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <20180309153654.13518-6-f4bug@amsat.org> From: Peter Maydell Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:06:29 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/8] sdcard: Implement the UHS-I SWITCH_FUNCTION entries (Spec v3) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= Cc: Alistair Francis , "Edgar E . Iglesias" , QEMU Developers On 9 March 2018 at 15:36, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wro= te: > [based on a patch from Alistair Francis > from qemu/xilinx tag xilinx-v2015.2] > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 > --- > hw/sd/sd.c | 148 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--= ------ > hw/sd/trace-events | 1 + > 2 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/sd/sd.c b/hw/sd/sd.c > index 235e0518d6..b907d62aef 100644 > --- a/hw/sd/sd.c > +++ b/hw/sd/sd.c > @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ struct SDState { > bool enable; > uint8_t dat_lines; > bool cmd_line; > + bool uhs_enabled; Oh, and what's the difference between s->uhs_enabled =3D false (this patch) and s->uhs_mode =3D UHS_NOT_SUPPORTED (next patch) ? Do we need both? If so, a comment noting the difference would help people to know which one various bits of code should be checking. thanks -- PMM