On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:03:34 +0100 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > > >> > of it's bad code structure. Therefore I have taken a quite simple > >> > approach by rejecting new callbacks and quirks, in a way to prevent it > >> > from being worse. > > > > Which merely guarantees that the problem gets worse, because everyone > > just puts their SD patches into Android trees instead and then when that > > device is needed in Linux proper the crap hits the fan or people write > > uglier and more hideous hacks buried elsewhere. > > > > Eventually something gives way, and it will always be the maintainer, > > because everyone needs to get their devices supported. You can guide new > > callbacks in constructive ways but not stop them. > > Well, I did stop them at least temporary. I always describe it as "putting a cork in the sewerage pipe". It might stop it for a bit but a) you don't want to be too close when it breaks b) it's not good what happens further up the pipe > > Although, I have been telling people *why* and also trying to give > some guidelines of how I wanted this to move forward. > > I understand some become frustrated from getting patches nacked like this. > > In principle I have requested them to help evolving sdhci in a new and > better direction, instead of adding yet more hacks. That of course > requires a deeper understanding of both the mmc core, but also sdhci > in general. > > [...] > > Also, thanks for sharing your experience in this field. You made some > good points! I'm happy to help try and sort the code out. Not maintain it - my knowledge of the intricacies of SDHCI is not good enough. Alan -- 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