On 28/01/16 17:16, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> I don't intend to contribute much with actual patches. I am willing to
>>> help review and also help with expertise around the PM related parts.
>>>
>>> I do realize that some callbacks may still be needed, even in the end
>>> when sdhci has become a pure library. Although, those should be far
>>> less then those we have today.
>>>
>>> Currently I am more or less unable to properly maintain sdhci because
>>> 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. To me, the best way forward would be if some of you
>>> experienced sdhci developers stepped in as a maintainer for it. In
>>> that way, I can trust the development moving in the "library
>>> direction" so I can pull back from nacking potential interim sdhci
>>> callbacks/quirks.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?
>>
>> I am happy to help and even be the SDHCI maintainer if Russell King and
>> others agree. I have an interest in sdhci-acpi and sdhci-pci and also there
>> is UHS-II and ADMA3 on the horizon.
>
> That's really great news. Thank you very much Adrian!
>
> Perhaps Russell is willing to help co-maintain it?
>
>>
>> I agree with Russell that a re-write would introduce more bugs and more work
>> than it would be worth. Making many small steps in the general direction is
>> preferable.
>>
>> Initially it would nice to see it made easy for drivers to replace specific
>> mmc ops and sdhci ops and then call the standard version before/after doing
>> some custom code. For example, P L Sai Krishna's auto-tuning problem might
>> be solved by something to the effect of:
>>
>> int arasan_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
>> {
>> struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
>> int err;
>>
>> err = sdhci_execute_tuning(mmc, opcode);
>> if (!err)
>> arasan_tune_sdclk(host);
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> And Wan Zongshun also wanted to be able directly to replace
>> sdhci_execute_tuning() from sdhci-pci.
>>
>> As suggested, my get_cd problem could also be solved by replacing the mmc
>> get_cd op.
>>
>
> Sounds like a perfect plan!
>
> Do you want to send a patch to the MAINTAINERS file?
Yes, I'll do that.
>
>>From my side I can also continue doing the administrative part of the
> work, so there's need for you to set up a separate git tree or send
> pull request. At least initially.
> Instead I will just pick patches that's been acked by you (and
> possibly Russell).
I might make a tree because I want to try to separate Russell's bug fixes
from the clean-ups, and then cc stable on the bug fixes.
--
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
