[PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Mike Looijmans
If vmmc or vqmmc regulators are controlled by an I2C device, the request for the regulator is likely to fail because the I2C bus has not been probed yet. The sdhci then incorrectly assumes that the user never wanted to use a regulator anyway and continues without ever enabling or configuring the

[PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Mike Looijmans
If vmmc or vqmmc regulators are controlled by an I2C device, the request for the regulator is likely to fail because the I2C bus has not been probed yet. The sdhci then incorrectly assumes that the user never wanted to use a regulator anyway and continues without ever enabling or configuring the

Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-acpi: Intel SDIO has broken card detect

2014-04-07 Thread Ulf Hansson
On 3 April 2014 13:58, Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@intel.com wrote: Intel SDIO has broken card detect so add a quirk to reflect that. Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@intel.com Acked-by: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-acpi.c | 1 + 1 file changed,

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index 34aef81..43b90c1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -2972,6 +2972,8 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) host-vqmmc = regulator_get_optional(mmc_dev(mmc), vqmmc); if

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Mike Looijmans
On 04/07/2014 10:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index 34aef81..43b90c1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -2972,6 +2972,8 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) host-vqmmc =

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Ben Dooks
On 07/04/14 13:09, Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 10:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index 34aef81..43b90c1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -2972,6 +2972,8 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Ben Dooks
On 07/04/14 13:16, Ben Dooks wrote: On 07/04/14 13:09, Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 10:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index 34aef81..43b90c1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -2972,6 +2972,8 @@

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 07 April 2014 13:18:54 Ben Dooks wrote: On 07/04/14 13:16, Ben Dooks wrote: On 07/04/14 13:09, Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 10:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index 34aef81..43b90c1 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Mike Looijmans
On 04/07/2014 02:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 13:18:54 Ben Dooks wrote: On 07/04/14 13:16, Ben Dooks wrote: On 07/04/14 13:09, Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 10:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 08:38:28 Mike Looijmans wrote: index

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Monday 07 April 2014 14:32:20 Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 02:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: Judging from the kernel output, regulator_get_optional returns -ENODEV if the supply wasn't found. Maybe the API is confusing (or wrong?) here. If you change the code as per your

Re: [PATCH] sdhci: Forward EPROBE_DEFER on vmmc and vqmmc regulators

2014-04-07 Thread Mike Looijmans
On 04/07/2014 02:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Monday 07 April 2014 14:32:20 Mike Looijmans wrote: On 04/07/2014 02:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: Judging from the kernel output, regulator_get_optional returns -ENODEV if the supply wasn't found. Maybe the API is confusing (or wrong?) here. If

omap_hsmmc: Problem with SanDisk Extreme Pro MicroSDHC 1

2014-04-07 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi! I'm currently testing on an OMAP3530 board (tao3530 SOM with custom baseboard) with v3.14. I applied all the OMAP/pbias patch from Balaji and MMC/SDcard detection seemed to work reliably. But now I noticed that the SanDisk Extreme Pro MicroSDHC 1 (8 GB) is not detected all the time. It

Re: [PATCH] mmc: Support FFU for Samsung eMMC v4.5

2014-04-07 Thread Grant Grundler
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Seunguk Shin seunguk.s...@samsung.com wrote: This change adds support to field firmware update (ffu) for Samsung emmc v4.5. Wow. I'm amazed and very happy that this has been posted. :) Samsung eMMC 4.5 FFU protocol is similar with eMMC 5.0 FFU without

Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-acpi: Intel SDIO has broken card detect

2014-04-07 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Adrian, On Mon, Apr 07 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: On 3 April 2014 13:58, Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@intel.com wrote: Intel SDIO has broken card detect so add a quirk to reflect that. Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter adrian.hun...@intel.com Acked-by: Ulf Hansson ulf.hans...@linaro.org Pushed

Re: [PATCH] mmc-utils: Support sending Samsung eMMC 4.5 FFU

2014-04-07 Thread Grant Grundler
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Seunguk Shin seunguk.s...@samsung.com wrote: This change adds support to invoke Samsung eMMC 4.5 field firmware update (ffu) process. New command was added: emmc45 ffu. Samsung eMMC 4.5 FFU protocol is similar with eMMC 5.0 FFU without MODE_OPERATION. It uses