sdhci-pltfm: Few additions and enhancements
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first · linked by author and title
- v1 Latest posting 2/23 patches 5 repliesIn review
- v1 posting 1/23 patches 2 repliesSuperseded
Patches in v1 posting 2/2 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/3 | sdhci: Implement CAP_CLOCK_BASE_BROKEN quirkdrivers/ drivers/ | +4 | 0 replies | |
| 2/3 | sdhci-pltfm: Implement platform data passingdrivers/ include/ | +47 | 2 replies | |
| 3/3 | sdhci-pltfm: Do not print errors in case of an extended iomem sizedrivers/ | +1 | 4 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
1 of 3 patches has a Reviewed-by or Acked-by.
| Patch | Richard Röjfors |
|---|---|
| 1/3 | |
| 2/3 | |
| 3/3 | A-b |
Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.
Cover letter [PATCH resend 0/3] sdhci-pltfm: Few additions and enhancements
Quoted 9 lines · Anton Vorontsov
Quoted 7 lines · David Vrabel
Quoted 3 lines · Anton Vorontsov
Some hosts (e.g. as found in CNS3xxx SOCs) report wrong value in
CLOCK_BASEcapability field, and currently there is no way to force the SDHCI core to use the platform-provided base clock value.I don't think this needs a new quirk. Change the sdhci driver to check if the platform provides a value before reading the standard register.
Quoted 8 lines
Well, Pierre once said that by default we should conform to the SDHCI spec, and any diviations from the spec should be handled by the quirks:
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-02/msg03385.html
Spec clearly states that base clock == 0 is the case when we should fall back to the platform-provided clocks.
No further comments, resending the patches...
Thanks,
Signature · 3 lines
Anton Vorontsov email: [email protected] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2