[PATCH 0/4] mmc: sdhci: adding support for a new Fujitsu sdhci IP

[Jassi Brar]

On 24 November 2014 at 17:24, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24 November 2014 at 11:45, Vincent Yang
> <vincent.yang.fujitsu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2014-11-24 17:54 GMT+08:00 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>:
>>> On 21 November 2014 at 01:51, Vincent Yang
>>> <vincent.yang.fujitsu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>   Fujitsu have an sdhci IP which is implemented in a SoC we're
>>>> adding to mainline, the most recent series for that was sent
>>>> here:
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/304522.html
>>>>
>>>>   These patches are against v3.18-rc5 mainline and tested on
>>>> v3.18-rc5 integration tree.
>>>>
>>>>   We welcome any comment and advice about how to make any
>>>> improvements or better align them with upstream.
>>>
>>> Apparently, there's a dependency between this patchset and the upper
>>> one you refereed to. That's a problem.
>>
>> This patchset does not require anything from the upper one I refereed to.
>
> No, but the upper depends on this patchset.
>
> Why can't you send the mmc patches separately in one patchset? That's
> would be easier to handle and review.
>
To be clear, the arch patchset introduces support for a new Fujitsu's
platform and has a sdhci controller driver named sdhci_f_sdh30.c which
will use 'general' improvements introduced by this patchset.

I would think the controller driver has more dependency on ARCH than
this patchset. IOW, sdhci_f_sdh30.c can't get upstream without arch
patches but this patchset can without the sdhci_f_sdh30.c driver.  Is
that not so?

Thanks
Jassi