lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] port ricoh_mmc to be pci quirk
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:43:50 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> (cc linux-mmc)
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:40:01 -0800
> Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:24:44 +0200
> > Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:55 -0800, Philip Langdale wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:53:04 +0200
> > > > Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >From 2d3002e29c329d76ca4e26d9f427814151a9648c Mon Sep 17
> > > > > >00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:53:28 +0200
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] port ricoh_mmc to be pci quirk
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch solves nasty problem original driver has.
> > > > > Original goal of the ricoh_mmc was to disable this device
> > > > > because then, mmc cards can be read using standard SDHCI
> > > > > controller, thus avoiding writing of yet another driver.
> > > > > However, the act of disablement, makes other pci functions
> > > > > that belong to this controller (xD and memstick) shift up one
> > > > > level, thus pci core has now wrong idea about these devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > To fix this issue, this patch moves the driver into pci quirk
> > > > > section, thus it is executes before the pci is enumerated, and
> > > > > therefore solving that issue, also same sequence of commands
> > > > > is performed on resume for same reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also regardless of the above, this way is cleaner.
> > > > >
> > > > > You still need to set CONFIG_MMC_RICOH_MMC
> > > > > to enable this quirk
> > > >
> > > > I like it. Only comment is that I'd like the printks to identify
> > > > which controller is involved. If Andrew is happy with the CONFIG
> > > > mechanism, then you've got an ack from me.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > >
> > > Hi, do you plan to include this patch in the kernel?
> >
> > That's Andrew's call, but to the extent that my opinion matters, I
> > support it being included.
> >
>
> I have a note here that Pierre had issues with the patch. I'm
> uncertain whether those are now resolved?

The last comment from Pierre I have is from the 25th of November and
says:

> I have no objections to this patch.

:-)

--phil


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-13 02:27    [W:0.087 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site