On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:04PM +0000, Chris Ball wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:32:30AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote: > > proposed this a while ago and strongly support just removing the quirk for > > broken timeout and setting the timeout value to maximum of 0xE. > > > > This also handles the case of the sd device having a timeout value too low. > > In my testing I have come across SD cards that do not provide the correct > > value. > > We force our pxa168, pxa910, and mmp2 controllers to have 0xE. > > Yeah, OLPC's CaFe controller -- which might be the same hardware as yours, > actually -- has the same problem. > > Does anyone know of a reason (beyond strict spec-compliance, I suppose) > for honoring the timeout value rather than using 0xE everywhere? If not, > I'm willing to try out Philip's suggestion.
+1. A full cycle in linux-next might an idea to be on the safe side? That would be 2.6.40-material then. Or too slow? Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
