Hi Wolfram
On 11/10/2010 4:43 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the work in general, just...
>
>> - if (pdev->dev.parent)
>> - host = sdhci_alloc_host(pdev->dev.parent, 0);
>> - else
>> - host = sdhci_alloc_host(&pdev->dev, 0);
>> -
>> + host = sdhci_alloc_host(&pdev->dev, 0);
>> if (IS_ERR(host)) {
>> ret = PTR_ERR(host);
>> goto err;
> NACK. This part looks different in current mainline (and for a reason).
Yes, as I had written in the first email I built these patches against
our Kernel 2.6.32.
I wanted to align them to the mmc-next after clarifying some doubts I had.
For example the wakeup option used for selecting at runtime the wakeup mode.
> Removing the dev.parent-branch will break some PCI-based solutions.
Hmm, I suspected this :-(. Unfortunately I need to not pass the parent
for the problem described in the patch.
How to proceed? Do I have to re-introduce the sdhci-stm driver?
> I think you should first rebase the series to mmc-next and then ask for
> review. It is too confusing for reviewers otherwise. At least, I will
> stop here.
At any rate, no problem to re-base the patches to the mmc-next.I'll do
it soon!
Regards
Peppe
> Kind regards,
>
> Wolfram
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
