Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

> > The big question seems to be whether the approach the patchset takes > > -- moving from quirks to hooks, extending sdhci.c without creating a > > full driver, and the initial choice of overridable hooks -- makes > > sense. I'd be happy to hear everyone's thoughts on that. > > I'd rather see

Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] sdio: enable Runtime PM for SDIO functions

Hi Chris, On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Chris Ball wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:29:08PM +0300, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > @@ -152,6 +173,11 @@ static int sdio_bus_remove(struct device *dev) > >               sdio_release_host(func); > >       } > > > > +     pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev); >

Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] sdio: enable Runtime PM for SDIO functions

Hi Ohad, On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:29:08PM +0300, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > @@ -152,6 +173,11 @@ static int sdio_bus_remove(struct device *dev) > sdio_release_host(func); > } > > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev); > + > + /* Undo the runtime PM settings in sdio_bus_probe()

Re: [PATCH] mmc: Add architecture dependency for Marvell SoC controller

Hi, On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:24:39AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > Since the driver is for controllers integrated into Marvells SoCs only > offer MMC_SDHCI_MV if we're building for one. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown > --- > drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig |1 + > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

> into 2.6.37, which is worth trying for. I like Wolfram's suggested > patchset format. Alan, do you feel comfortable re-doing this in time > for some testing before the merge window opens, or should I help? Redoing it shouldn't be a problem, getting testing of the MID bits will slow it down a

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

Hi, On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I would indeed prefer to first have minimal changes to the > mmc/sdhci-core and then have the final version of sdhci-intel-mid.c put > on top of that (also applies to patch 4/7). Less error prone and easier > to review. Yet, I am

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:45:12 +0200 Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 02:40:57PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:21:29 +0200 > > Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Coding style fixes > > > > > > > > Signe

Re: [PATCH 1/7] sdhci: Rework some of the quirk behaviour

> > drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig | 11 ++ > > drivers/mmc/host/Makefile |1 > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-intel-mid.c | 163 > > > > Why are those added here and not in patch 3/7? I thought it would be useful to add the hooks and show how t

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 02:40:57PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:21:29 +0200 > Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Coding style fixes > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox > > > > Shouldn't this be folded into the patch whic

Re: [PATCH 1/7] sdhci: Rework some of the quirk behaviour

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:38:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > As the quirks go ever more complex it's getting harder and harder to integrate > new drivers. The Intel MID devices add a whole further collection of new > quirks so instead of quirks start moving some stuff to overridable functions. > >

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:21:29 +0200 Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Coding style fixes > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox > > Shouldn't this be folded into the patch which initially creates > sdhci-intel-mid.c? The work was done later and the si

Re: [PATCH 5/7] sdhci: Tidy up spaces in sdhci_intel_mid

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Coding style fixes > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox Shouldn't this be folded into the patch which initially creates sdhci-intel-mid.c? Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang| Indu

Re: [patch 1/1] sdhci-base-clock-freqency-change-in-spec-3.0

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 02:18:53PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:22:56AM -0400, zhangfei gao wrote: > > From: Zhangfei Gao > > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:02:36 -0400 > > Subject: [PATCH] sdhci: base clock freqency change in spec 3.0 > > Thanks, applied to mmc-next.

Re: [patch 1/1] sdhci-base-clock-freqency-change-in-spec-3.0

Hi, On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:22:56AM -0400, zhangfei gao wrote: > From: Zhangfei Gao > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:02:36 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] sdhci: base clock freqency change in spec 3.0 Thanks, applied to mmc-next. We should have all of the changes required for SDHC 3.0 (8-bit wide data,

Re: [patch v2 1/1]sdhci support 10 bit divided clock Mode for spec 3.0

Hi, On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:08:57AM -0400, zhangfei gao wrote: > From: Zhangfei Gao > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:10:01 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] sdhci: support 10-bit divided clock Mode Thanks, applied to mmc-next with minor cleanup. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child

Re: [patch 21/30] mmc: Convert "mutex" to semaphore

Hi, On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:33:22PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Get rid of init_MUTEX[_LOCKED]() and use sema_init() instead. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner > Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org > > --- > drivers/mmc/card/queue.c |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Re: [PATCH] mmc: MMC 4.4 DDR support

Hi Hanumath, Linus, On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:30:45PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > I am not able to test DDR mode but it look to me that the patch > should be changed. Here is a fix: > > From: Adrian Hunter > Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:20:26 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] mmc: Fix Dual Data Rate (DDR

Re: cleaning up sdhci? (was Re: [RFC] thoughts about recent Samsung related patches)

> That is, if some implementations of a controller do not adhere to > that standard and change some bits in the register layout, well, then > they have to live with the quirks and their performance issues IMHO. The ATA layer uses I/O accessors although it abstracts them a bit (so its got 'read sta

cleaning up sdhci? (was Re: [RFC] thoughts about recent Samsung related patches)

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:05:30AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > I hope my comments are applicable; because there is no freely available > >> > datasheet, I can't verify all of my assumptions. Looking forward to > >> > comments. > >> Good

RE: [PATCH v2] sdio: skip initialization on powered resume

Hi Bing, Chris, On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 19:10 -0700, Bing Zhao wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Nicolas Pitre [mailto:n...@fluxnic.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:29 PM > > To: Bing Zhao > > Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; Michal Miroslaw; Chris Ball; Andr