> -----Original Message----- > From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:10 PM > To: Yangbo Lu > Cc: Scott Wood; Lu Yangbo-B47093; linux-mmc; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; Leo li > Subject: Re: [v4, 5/6] mmc: kconfig: select FSL_GUTS for > MMC_SDHCI_OF_ESDHC > > On 28 December 2015 at 11:26, Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:31 PM > >> To: Scott Wood > >> Cc: Lu Yangbo-B47093; linux-mmc; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; Leo li > >> Subject: Re: [v4, 5/6] mmc: kconfig: select FSL_GUTS for > >> MMC_SDHCI_OF_ESDHC > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> >> > >> >> And I think stubs for reading SVR is quite a bad idea. It'll make > >> >> the driver build but it will silently not be able to apply > >> >> SVR-based > >> workarounds. > >> > > >> > It doesn't have to be "silent", the driver can return an error (and > >> > print error messages) from its ->probe() method, if the calls to > >> > the GUTS driver fails. > >> > > >> > Anyway, I mentioned this idea only to understand the need for > >> > *optional* GUTS supports. Perhaps there is a cross SOC drivers that > >> > for some platforms depends on GUTS but on others it doesn't. > >> > > >> > Maybe that isn't case then!? > >> > >> Can you please answer this question!? > >> > >> According to the earlier versions of this patchset and from your > >> comments [1], it *do* seems like the GUTS driver may be optional and > >> thus stubs could address this. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Uffe > >> > >> [1] > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg34412.html > > > > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] Hi Scott and Uffe, > > In the earlier version, I'd like to use syscon support and only add > 'syscon' compatible in the dts whose eSDHC needs to use it to get SVR. > > But I never thought this had caused so much discussion... :( > > Sorry, I understand your frustration but that's life sometimes. :-) > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] Thank you so much for your understanding :) > To me, the syscon solution is more elegant... > > > Could we reach an agreement about the 'optional' or not 'optional'? > > ...but I am fine with the current approach as well, as long as my recent > comments gets addressed. Let's make it optional. > > Address Scott's and my review-comments, get other peoples ack for the > non-mmc parts, then I will happily pick up the patches. > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] Thanks a lot. I would add other reviewers in next version. > Kind regards > Uffe ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��i��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
