On 24 November 2014 at 17:24, Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:

On 24 November 2014 at 11:45, Vincent Yang
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2014-11-24 17:54 GMT+08:00 Ulf Hansson [off-list ref]:

quoted

On 21 November 2014 at 01:51, Vincent Yang
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello,

  Fujitsu have an sdhci IP which is implemented in a SoC we're
adding to mainline, the most recent series for that was sent
here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/304522.html

  These patches are against v3.18-rc5 mainline and tested on
v3.18-rc5 integration tree.

  We welcome any comment and advice about how to make any
improvements or better align them with upstream.

Apparently, there's a dependency between this patchset and the upper
one you refereed to. That's a problem.

This patchset does not require anything from the upper one I refereed to.

No, but the upper depends on this patchset.

Why can't you send the mmc patches separately in one patchset? That's
would be easier to handle and review.

To be clear, the arch patchset introduces support for a new Fujitsu's
platform and has a sdhci controller driver named sdhci_f_sdh30.c which
will use 'general' improvements introduced by this patchset.

I would think the controller driver has more dependency on ARCH than
this patchset. IOW, sdhci_f_sdh30.c can't get upstream without arch
patches but this patchset can without the sdhci_f_sdh30.c driver.  Is
that not so?

Thanks
Jassi