| Message ID | 1404976119-10777-6-git-send-email-jh80.chung@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 10 July 2014 09:08, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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. Now, while I was applying this patch, I found it had checkpatch errors. Please run checkpatch and resend a new version. Kind regards Uffe > --- > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 12 +++++------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > index 1ac227c..a3ccd07 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c > @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static int dw_mci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc) > int gpio_ro = mmc_gpio_get_ro(mmc); > > /* Use platform get_ro function, else try on board write protect */ > - if (slot->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) > + if (slot->host->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) > read_only = 0; > else if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(gpio_ro)) > read_only = gpio_ro; > @@ -2006,12 +2006,7 @@ static struct device_node *dw_mci_of_find_slot_node(struct device *dev, u8 slot) > static struct dw_mci_of_slot_quirks { > char *quirk; > int id; > -} of_slot_quirks[] = { > - { > - .quirk = "disable-wp", > - .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, > - }, > -}; > +} of_slot_quirks[] = {}; > > static int dw_mci_of_get_slot_quirks(struct device *dev, u8 slot) > { > @@ -2238,6 +2233,9 @@ static struct dw_mci_of_quirks { > { > .quirk = "broken-cd", > .id = DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION, > + },{ > + .quirk = "disable-wp", > + .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, > }, > }; > > -- > 1.7.9.5 >
Hi, Ulf. On 07/10/2014 06:15 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 July 2014 09:08, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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. > > Now, while I was applying this patch, I found it had checkpatch > errors. Please run checkpatch and resend a new version. Sorry for not checking the patch. I will resend a new version. Thanks for pointing out. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > Kind regards > Uffe > >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 12 +++++------- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> index 1ac227c..a3ccd07 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static int dw_mci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc) >> int gpio_ro = mmc_gpio_get_ro(mmc); >> >> /* Use platform get_ro function, else try on board write protect */ >> - if (slot->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) >> + if (slot->host->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) >> read_only = 0; >> else if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(gpio_ro)) >> read_only = gpio_ro; >> @@ -2006,12 +2006,7 @@ static struct device_node *dw_mci_of_find_slot_node(struct device *dev, u8 slot) >> static struct dw_mci_of_slot_quirks { >> char *quirk; >> int id; >> -} of_slot_quirks[] = { >> - { >> - .quirk = "disable-wp", >> - .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, >> - }, >> -}; >> +} of_slot_quirks[] = {}; >> >> static int dw_mci_of_get_slot_quirks(struct device *dev, u8 slot) >> { >> @@ -2238,6 +2233,9 @@ static struct dw_mci_of_quirks { >> { >> .quirk = "broken-cd", >> .id = DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION, >> + },{ >> + .quirk = "disable-wp", >> + .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, >> }, >> }; >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >
On 10 July 2014 11:40, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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@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 5. Kind regards Uffe >> >> Now, while I was applying this patch, I found it had checkpatch >> errors. Please run checkpatch and resend a new version. > > Sorry for not checking the patch. I will resend a new version. > Thanks for pointing out. > > Best Regards, > Jaehoon Chung > >> >> Kind regards >> Uffe >> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 12 +++++------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >>> index 1ac227c..a3ccd07 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >>> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static int dw_mci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc) >>> int gpio_ro = mmc_gpio_get_ro(mmc); >>> >>> /* Use platform get_ro function, else try on board write protect */ >>> - if (slot->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) >>> + if (slot->host->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) >>> read_only = 0; >>> else if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(gpio_ro)) >>> read_only = gpio_ro; >>> @@ -2006,12 +2006,7 @@ static struct device_node *dw_mci_of_find_slot_node(struct device *dev, u8 slot) >>> static struct dw_mci_of_slot_quirks { >>> char *quirk; >>> int id; >>> -} of_slot_quirks[] = { >>> - { >>> - .quirk = "disable-wp", >>> - .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, >>> - }, >>> -}; >>> +} of_slot_quirks[] = {}; >>> >>> static int dw_mci_of_get_slot_quirks(struct device *dev, u8 slot) >>> { >>> @@ -2238,6 +2233,9 @@ static struct dw_mci_of_quirks { >>> { >>> .quirk = "broken-cd", >>> .id = DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION, >>> + },{ >>> + .quirk = "disable-wp", >>> + .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, >>> }, >>> }; >>> >>> -- >>> 1.7.9.5 >>> >> >
On Thu, July 10, 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 July 2014 11:40, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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@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 > 5. > [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.) Kukjin, Is it fine to be taken in Ulf's? Thanks, Seungwon Jeon
On 10 July 2014 13:53, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@samsung.com> wrote: > On Thu, July 10, 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 10 July 2014 11:40, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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@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 >> 5. >> > > [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.) > > Kukjin, > 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! Kind regards Uffe
On Thu, July 10, 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 July 2014 13:53, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@samsung.com> wrote: > > On Thu, July 10, 2014, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> On 10 July 2014 11:40, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@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@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@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 > >> 5. > >> > > > > [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.) > > > > Kukjin, > > 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 guess it's based on Ulf or Chris? It may need to be rebased for 3.16 rc4. > > 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! Thanks, Seungwon Jeon
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c index 1ac227c..a3ccd07 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static int dw_mci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc) int gpio_ro = mmc_gpio_get_ro(mmc); /* Use platform get_ro function, else try on board write protect */ - if (slot->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) + if (slot->host->quirks & DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT) read_only = 0; else if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(gpio_ro)) read_only = gpio_ro; @@ -2006,12 +2006,7 @@ static struct device_node *dw_mci_of_find_slot_node(struct device *dev, u8 slot) static struct dw_mci_of_slot_quirks { char *quirk; int id; -} of_slot_quirks[] = { - { - .quirk = "disable-wp", - .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, - }, -}; +} of_slot_quirks[] = {}; static int dw_mci_of_get_slot_quirks(struct device *dev, u8 slot) { @@ -2238,6 +2233,9 @@ static struct dw_mci_of_quirks { { .quirk = "broken-cd", .id = DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION, + },{ + .quirk = "disable-wp", + .id = DW_MCI_SLOT_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT, }, };
Replaced the "disable-wp" into host's quirks. (Because the slot-node is removed at dt-file.) Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> --- drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)