Hi, On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I would indeed prefer to first have minimal changes to the > mmc/sdhci-core and then have the final version of sdhci-intel-mid.c put > on top of that (also applies to patch 4/7). Less error prone and easier > to review. Yet, I am not the one who is picking up the patches. > > (BTW can't you just combine SoB if you fold patches?) I'm willing to help split up/fold patches if it'll help, especially if it would make a difference to whether or not we get MID support into 2.6.37, which is worth trying for. I like Wolfram's suggested patchset format. Alan, do you feel comfortable re-doing this in time for some testing before the merge window opens, or should I help? I think we should postpone style cleanups outside of sdhci-intel-mid.c until .38, when there'll be less of an outstanding patch backlog. The big question seems to be whether the approach the patchset takes -- moving from quirks to hooks, extending sdhci.c without creating a full driver, and the initial choice of overridable hooks -- makes sense. I'd be happy to hear everyone's thoughts on that. Thanks for the review so far, Wolfram! - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
