Hi Chris, Ian AFAICS there are currently still a few tmio patch-series outstanding: From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski <at> gmx.de> Subject: [PATCH 0/2] tmio_mmc: improve DMA reliability http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/6485 From: Simon Horman <horms <at> verge.net.au> Subject: [PATCH 0/4] [rfc v3] mmc, ARM: Add zboot from eSD support for SuperH Mobile ARM http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/6664 From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski <at> gmx.de> Subject: [PATCH 0/6] mmc: split the tmio driver into several modules http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/10304 From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski <at> gmx.de> Subject: [PATCH 0/4 v2] mmc: tmio: don't access nonexisting registers http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/10311 From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski <at> gmx.de> Subject: [PATCH/RFC 0/2 v2] mmc: tmio: power management and clock gating http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/6627 Of those the first patchset shouldn't have any issues. I haven't followed discussions regarding the second patchset from Simon - is it going to be applied as is, or is a new revision required? If it is going to be applied, shall I rebase my remaining patches on top of it or would you prefer Simon to rebase his patches (I think, he has only one patch, touching tmio: [PATCH 1/4])? As for the rest of the patches, IIRC, the only remaining issue, that I'll be fixing today is Magnus' wish to allocate the bounce buffer dynamically. Although, I could imagine doing that incrementally, because the #ifdef, that Magnus would like to get rid of is already now in the code, it is not introduced by these my patches. But I can redo my patches too, no problem. What would be the preferred approach? Thanks Guennadi On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Ian Molton wrote: > Sounds like a good idea... Its possible that I could implement DMA on > the toshiba stuff too, can your code handle this? > > (I havent had time to read this yet) > > -- > Ian Molton > Linux, Automotive, and other hacking: > http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ > > > > On 11 March 2011 07:51, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi all > > > > The tmio_mmc SD/SDIO driver is serving very different hardware > > configurations: on the one hand multi-function style chips from Toshiba, > > Compaq, on the other hand SDHI units in ARM- and SuperH-based sh-mobile > > SoCs. Apart from the different native APIs: MFD for the former and > > platform-device in the latter, sh-mobile implementations also have a > > number of features, exclusive to them, which, if implemented in the common > > driver, clutter it needlessly and make its maintenance more difficult. > > This patch series simplifies the situation by splitting the driver up into > > 3 modules: the core, consisting of the main part and, on sh-mobile, of the > > DMA part; the mfd glue; and the platform glue. This way also (imaginary) > > sh-mobile systems with additional tmio mfd chips on them can be supported. > > > > Thanks > > Guennadi > > --- > > Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. > > Freelance Open-Source Software Developer > > http://www.open-technology.de/ > > > --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
