Chris wrote: > Hi Kyungmin, Ben, > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:18:12AM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:08:28PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > > >> Well there are two implementations. and no conclusion yet. > > >> as s5pc210 don't support internal SDHCI clock, DMC overrides the > > >> function operation itself when s5pc210. System LSI use the quirks. > > >> > > >> Choose any one from MMC maintainer. > > > > > > Both approaches are generally acceptable for MMC, so I would want to > > > leave it up to the maintainer of the driver in question (which is Ben, > > > in this case?) to choose between them. > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Did you get the opinion from Ben? > > > > I hope this decision will be done before 2.6.37 merge windows start to > > support SDHCI support on s5pc210. > > Hm, I didn't, and Ben's been silent about the urgent sdhci-s3c patches > too. Ben, are you just dealing with a large backlog, or are you > interested in nominating someone else to take over sdhci-s3c? Hi Chris, Kyungmin I'd like to let you know that Ben had reviewed and commented for "[PATCH v2 2/2] sdhci-s3c: Add support no internal clock divider" in host controller in 9/21. However, our response was late due to our holidays. I made a response in 9/28 that why we use this quirk and now we're waiting for his opinion. Kyungmin, did you check Ben's review comments for this ? When I saw it, his approach is just a bit different from you and me. Please let us know if you have any idea about his comments. Thanks, Best Regards Jeongbae Seo -- 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
