[PATCHv3 5/5] mmc: dw_mmc: replace "disable-wp" from slot's quirk to host's quirk
ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Thu Jul 10 05:10:48 PDT 2014
On 10 July 2014 13:53, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun at samsung.com> wrote:
> On Thu, July 10, 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 10 July 2014 11:40, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung at samsung.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, Ulf.
>> > On 07/10/2014 06:15 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> On 10 July 2014 09:08, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung at samsung.com> wrote:
>> >>> Replaced the "disable-wp" into host's quirks.
>> >>> (Because the slot-node is removed at dt-file.)
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung at samsung.com>
>> >> Hi Jaehoon,
>> >> I plan to carry these patches through my mmc tree and I will share
>> >> them through a PR from an immutable branch with the ARM SoC guys.
>> >> Please tell me if you have any concern with this set up.
>> Hmm, I having a second thought around this. Could I just apply the mmc
>> patches for my next branch instead of involving ARM SoC? In other
>> words, are there any decencies? If not, I might just apply patch 1 and
> [PATCHv4 2/5] ARM: dts: exynos: unuse the slot-node and deprecated the supports-highspeed for dw-mmc
> [PATCHv4 4/5] ARM: dts: rockchip: unuse the slot-node and deprecated the supports-highspeed for dw-mmc
> [PATCHv4 5/5] mmc: dw_mmc: replace "disable-wp" from slot's quirk to host's quirk
> 2nd and 4th are closely related 5th.
> I think it shall be picked together. How about taking whole patch?
> And I hope that it is applied for 3.16-rcX fix.
> (Also, 3rd patch is close to fix patch.)
> Is it fine to be taken in Ulf's?
I tried applied the complete patchset for 3.16 rc4, but some of the
DTS patches fails. What are these patches based upon?
I wonder if it's not best to leave all these for Kukjin to handle
instead. You have my ack for all of the mmc patches!
More information about the linux-arm-kernel