Re: [PATCH] mmci: drop superfluous regulator #ifdef

2010-12-10 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:39:08AM +, Chris Ball wrote: Hi Linus, On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: The regulator and MMC frameworks provide the proper stub functions for the regulator functions anyway, get rid of this. Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH] mmci: drop superfluous regulator #ifdef

2010-12-10 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:30:05AM +0100, Linus WALLEIJ wrote: Thanks, pushed to mmc-next for .38. Also queued in the ARM tree. Chris, Russell is listed as maintainer for this driver so he probably prefers to take in changes to it through the ARM tree, can you take this patch out

Re: [PATCH] MMC: Fix multiblock SDIO transfers in AT91 MCI

2010-12-10 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Nicolas, On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 04:54:13PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: A little ping! Do you want that I re-send you the patch with relevant S-O-B lines or you can include them yourself? Thanks for the ping -- I've pushed this to mmc-next and queued it for 2.6.37 now. This looks like a

[PATCH] MMC: Fix multiblock SDIO transfers in ATMEL MCI

2010-12-10 Thread Nicolas Ferre
Based on report made by Yauhen in: MMC: Fix multiblock SDIO transfers in AT91 MCI patch, I report those changes to the brother driver: atmel-mci. So, this patch sets SDIO transfer types: SDIO block and SDIO byte transfers instead of using ordinary MMC block transfers. It is checking opcode for

Re: [PATCH] MMC: Fix multiblock SDIO transfers in ATMEL MCI

2010-12-10 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Nicolas, On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:14:32PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: Based on report made by Yauhen in: MMC: Fix multiblock SDIO transfers in AT91 MCI patch, I report those changes to the brother driver: atmel-mci. So, this patch sets SDIO transfer types: SDIO block and SDIO byte

Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

2010-12-10 Thread Alan Stern
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, December 10, 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: When pm_runtime_put_sync() returns, the _put operation is completed, and if needed (zero usage_count, children are ignored or their count is zero, -runtime_idle() called pm_runtime_suspend(),

Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

2010-12-10 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, December 10, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, December 10, 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: When pm_runtime_put_sync() returns, the _put operation is completed, and if needed (zero usage_count, children are ignored or their count

Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

2010-12-10 Thread Ohad Ben-Cohen
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: On Friday, December 10, 2010, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: When pm_runtime_put_sync() returns, the _put operation is completed, and if needed (zero usage_count, children are ignored or their count is zero, -runtime_idle()

Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

2010-12-10 Thread Ohad Ben-Cohen
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: I prefer the first patch, so Ohad, if you want it merged, please resend with a sign-off etc. Sure. Thanks, Ohad. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-mmc in the body of a message to

Re: [linux-pm] subtle pm_runtime_put_sync race and sdio functions

2010-12-10 Thread Ohad Ben-Cohen
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote: A different, bolder solution, will always call pm_runtime_idle instead of pm_request_idle (see below): when a device is runtime suspended, it can't be too bad to immediately send idle notification to its parent, too.