Hi David, Am Dienstag, 12. März 2019, 21:34:00 CET schrieb David Summers: > On 12/03/2019 14:22, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > > > Am Samstag, 9. März 2019, 16:39:21 CET schrieb David Summers: > >> The Problem: > >> > >> On ASUS Tinker Board S, when booting from the eMMC, and there is card > >> in the sd slot, there are constant errors. > >> > >> Also when warm reboot, uboot can not access the sd slot > >> > >> Cause: > >> > >> Identified by Robin Murphy @ ARM. The Card Detect on rk3288 > >> devices is pulled up by vccio-sd; so when the regulator powers this > >> off, card detect gives spurious errors. A second problem, is during > >> power down, vccio-sd apprears to be powered down. This causes a > >> problem when warm rebooting from the sd card. This was identified by > >> Jonas Karlman. > >> > >> History: > >> > >> A common fault on these rk3288 board, which impliment the reference > >> design. > >> > >> When this arose before: > >> > >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/281153. > >> html > >> > >> And Ulf and Jaehoon clearly said this was a broken card detect design, > >> which should be solved via polling > >> > >> Solution: > >> > >> Hence broken-cd is set as a property. This cures the errors. The > >> powering down of vccio-sd during reboot is cured by adding > >> regulator-boot-on. > >> > >> This solutions has been fairly widely reviewed and tested. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Summers <beagleboard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > in v2, you gave a > > Tested-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx> > > it seems, which somehow transformed into a reviewed-by in v3. > > > > V3 did change a bit in its approach - for the better, but do you approve > > of adding that Reviewed-by above (and maybe also providing a Tested-by > > for the new approach)? > > > > Thanks > > Heiko > > Hi all, > > Yes apologies for these signed-off lines etc wrong. Its still a learning > experiment for me! > > Both Robin and Jonas added a lot to Patch, as explained in the write up. > Robin came up with the cause of the fault, and Jonas noticed a second > fault. So the question is to give these two their due. I think what they > both added was important. > > Thanks Robin for the official "Reviewed-by". > > Jonas tested the second version, which kept power on vccio-sd all the > time, whereas v1 and v3 cured the problem with broken-cd. So although > both fixed the problem, they way performed is different. So don't think > I can say Jonas Tested-by v3. We'll just give Jonas a bit more time to reply then :-) . > As for the tested by "TheSaint @ ArchLinux Arm", he actually tested just > above every single version of the patch, and a whole lot more before it > was sent in - he is our ASUS Tinker Board user on arch. He doesn't > really want his email in the open, but if push comes to shove he'll > allow it. Question is do you need this for the Patch to pass? No, that is not necessary. I'll just drop the line when applying. In general for a tag to mean something we need the Name, but any tags other than Signed-off-by are optional anyway. > Heiko, I'm happy to change the sign off etc, and resent the patch (as > v4). But would be the same patch. Think the question is what is best for > you. Don't want to send unneeded email ... anyway let me know (private > email?) and I'll do whatever is best for you. No, re-sending just to correct tags is not necessary in _my_ case as I generally just fix up the relevant lines myself when applying. Just keep in mind, other maintainers may handle this differently :-) . > P.S. Eventually I'll get better at these patches , alas the day job > keeps me too busy - and I forget the rules :( Really no problem, it's always a learning experience. So don't worry too much :-) . Heiko
