On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:06:39AM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Guennadi, > > On Tue, Dec 04 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >> They both sound pretty attractive. Maybe we start out with (1), which > >> would create a patch we could more reasonably send to stable@ to get > >> slot-gpio handling the reset during transfers properly in older kernels, > >> and then refactor into (2) later? > > > > Just posted 3 patches for this, have a look if that's what you were > > thinking about. Not sure though why this is needed for stable, but I'm > > probably just missing some crucial information on the topic. > > Thanks! I'll take a look. I agree that this isn't definitely needed > in -stable, but I'm glad we have the option if someone finds that their > host isn't functioning after card removal during a transfer. > > Russell, are you happy with switching sdhci-dove over to slot-gpio with > this patchset? I'd rather not until I've moved my cubox kernel tree to v3.7 (when it's out.) Keeping stuff straight between that tree and mainline is far from easy - I'm having to maintain two independent patches for each change, one against each kernel tree, one gets tested (the one in the cubox tree) the other (against mainline) does not. -- 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
