| 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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 >>> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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(-)