Hello Wolfram, thank you for your answer. on 12.03.2012 11:10 Wolfram Sang said the following: >> Probably this is a question for the Freescale people: why was the >> "mx_sdhci" necessary at all > > It probably was never necessary, it was just easier to hack on a forked > driver, because you can't break other sdhci-users, I guess. Since large > portions of the code are duplicated but issues have been fixed in a > very, ahem, custom manner, this was never suitable for mainline. Back > then, most vendors thought this is good enough. Luckily, times have > changed a bit. Yes, I know that thinking. >> and why is it not necessary any more? > > Because I wanted SD support in mainline, so I had to take a different > path. I understand. >> Any help, hints and historical informations are highly appreciated, >> before I start to look deeper into this problem. > > They don't have a common ancestor. Just dig into both, you will > recognize patterns, I guess. Ok, to sum this up: SDIO IRQs are working in mx_sdhci in the Freescale tree because it was properly implemented and tested, obviously. SDIO IRQs are working for sdhci in mainline probably for other non-freescale platforms. You fixed the generic sdhci driver in mainline to work with iMX53 to get rid of the need for mx_sdhci, but probably never got the chance to test if SDIO IRQs are really working. That means, the subtle difference between mx_sdhci and sdhci to get SDIO IRQS to work on sdhci with iMX53 has yet to be found. > Regards, > Wolfram CU Michael. -- 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