[PATCH 0/4] Extend sdhci-esdhc-imx card_detect and write_protect support for mx5

[Shawn Guo]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:29:57PM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at freescale.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:13:29PM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> >> Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at freescale.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:42:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >> >> The card-present polling within sdhci based driver is very expensive
> >> >> in terms of the impact to system performance.  We observe a few
> >> >> system performance issues from Freescale and Linaro on mx5 platforms,
> >> >> which have been proved card polling related.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The patch set extends the current sdhci-esdhc-imx card_detect and
> >> >> write_protect support to cover mx5 platforms, and solves above
> >> >> performance issues.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Shawn Guo (4):
> >> >>       mmc: sdhci: fix interrupt storm from card detection
> >> >>       mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: SDHCI_CARD_PRESENT does not get cleared
> >> >>       mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: remove "WP" from flag ESDHC_FLAG_GPIO_FOR_CD_WP
> >> >>       mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: extend card_detect and write_protect support
> >> >> 
> >> > Hi Arnaud,
> >> >
> >> > Any chance to play with it yet?
> >> 
> >> I tried applying the patch 4 (v2) on mmc git and Sascha Hauer's for-next
> >> branch and failed. Can you please tell me on which tree should I apply
> >> it ?
> >> 
> > Sascha really should not picked up the following 3 patches.  They are
> > nonsense when driver is not even ready for the support.  These 3
> > patches have conflict with my patch set.  You should be able to
> > apply with these 3 removed.
> 
> They're still not applying. It's failing to failing
> sdhci-esdhc-imx.c. I'm currently trying t make sure I didn't miss
> something but it looks like the patch is not against for-next. For
> instance, look at :
> http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=imx/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c;h=a19967d0bfc48b0ce8216de0d1a727093ee9fa03;hb=refs/heads/for-next
> 
> It's already adding a esdhc_pltfm_get_ro() function, so I fail to see
> how a patch adding a function with same name can work.
> 
My patch did not add esdhc_pltfm_get_ro() function but moved it a
little bit.  Anyway, I will go ahead to rebase the patch set on
the latest 'next' and send it as v2 shortly, since we have not heard
anything from Sascha.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn