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

Vincent Yang vincent.yang.fujitsu at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 07:08:37 PST 2014

2014-11-25 21:18 GMT+08:00 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh at linaro.org>:
> On 25 November 2014 at 18:28, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> I suspected build-bots might complain for non-arm configs. And do we
> want to allow building Fujitsu controller driver even if ARCH_MB86S7X
> is not enabled?
> Vincent, lets remove ARCH_MB86S7X dependency and include the driver in
> this patchset as Ulf wants.

Yes, I'll do them in next version.
I'll also remove patch of "mmc: core: hold SD Clock before CMD11 during Signal"
because it had already kindly applied for next by Ulf.

Thank you and kind regards,

> Thanks,
> Jassi

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list