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

[Ulf Hansson]

On 24 November 2014 at 13:29, Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh at linaro.org> wrote:
> 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?

Nope. I fail to see why there should be an ARCH dependency, there shouldn't!

Well, I did note that to build the new driver it depended on
ARCH_MB86S7X. Let's just remove that, because it's not needed.

Kind regards
Uffe