Extend sdhci-esdhc-imx card_detect and write_protect support for mx5
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 4 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 4 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/4] Extend sdhci-esdhc-imx card_detect and write_protect support for mx5
Quoted 25 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 24 lines · Arnaud Patard
Shawn Guo <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Quoted 19 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 9 lines
The card-present polling within sdhci based driver is very expensive in terms of the impact to system performance. We observe a few system performance issues from Freescale and Linaro on mx5 platforms, which have been proved card polling related.
The patch set extends the current sdhci-esdhc-imx
card_detectandwrite_protectsupport to cover mx5 platforms, and solves above performance issues.Quoted 6 lines
Shawn Guo (4):
mmc: sdhci: fix interrupt storm from card detection
mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx:SDHCI_CARD_PRESENTdoes not get cleared
mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: remove "WP" from flagESDHC_FLAG_GPIO_FOR_CD_WP
mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: extendcard_detectandwrite_protectsupportHi Arnaud,
Any chance to play with it yet?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I tried applying the patch 4 (v2) on mmc git and Sascha Hauer's for-next branch and failed. Can you please tell me on which tree should I apply it ?
Sascha really should not picked up the following 3 patches. They are nonsense when driver is not even ready for the support. These 3 patches have conflict with my patch set. You should be able to apply with these 3 removed.
They're still not applying. It's failing to failing sdhci-esdhc-imx.c. I'm currently trying t make sure I didn't miss something but it looks like the patch is not against for-next. For instance, look at :
http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=imx/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c;h=a19967d0bfc48b0ce8216de0d1a727093ee9fa03;hb=refs/heads/for-next
It's already adding a esdhc_pltfm_get_ro() function, so I fail to see how a patch adding a function with same name can work.
Thanks,
Arnaud