On Fri, August 09, 2013, Chris Ball wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09 2013, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I guess my overall question is: if there are no actual implementations > >> of multislot, shouldn't we kill it and simplify the code a whole lot? > >> If someone out there has a real multislot device they can step back in > >> and do it more correctly? > >> > >> Of course we need to find someone to actually go through and do the > >> killing of multislot, but finding that person might be easier if there > >> was some agreement that it was good to do. > > > > There clearly seems to be no in-tree users of multislot. If someone > > new comes in, we have the code in the history and can revert the > > removal (or at least use it as reference for re-introduction). > > > > I vote for removing it. It adds really annoying complexity for > > something that nobody uses. > > I agree with Olof, for what it's worth. (The maintainers of the > driver are Jaehoon and Seungwon, though.) I feel like there is no actual use case for that though origin Synopsys IP supports. Multi-slot might be not useful in terms of performance because shared bus should be allowed. (At least this is the way I see it, though) As Exynos's host does so, other hosts which are introduced in Linux seems use one card per host. If it's really not found now, I could agree on this topic. Thanks, Seungwon Jeon -- 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
