On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:17:30PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:

On 16 June 2014 12:46, Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:08:07PM +0100, Russell King wrote:

quoted

@@ -1507,25 +1529,7 @@ static void sdhci_do_set_ios(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_ios *ios)
                      host->ops->set_clock(host, host->clock);
              }

-             if (host->ops->set_uhs_signaling)
-                     host->ops->set_uhs_signaling(host, ios->timing);
-             else {
-                     ctrl_2 = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
-                     /* Select Bus Speed Mode for host */
-                     ctrl_2 &= ~SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_MASK;
-                     if ((ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS200) ||
-                         (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR104))
-                             ctrl_2 |= SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_SDR104;
-                     else if (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR12)
-                             ctrl_2 |= SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_SDR12;
-                     else if (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25)
-                             ctrl_2 |= SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_SDR25;
-                     else if (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR50)
-                             ctrl_2 |= SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_SDR50;
-                     else if (ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_DDR50)
-                             ctrl_2 |= SDHCI_CTRL_UHS_DDR50;
-                     sdhci_writew(host, ctrl_2, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
-             }
+             host->ops->set_uhs_signaling(host, ios->timing);

              if (!(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_PRESET_VALUE_BROKEN) &&
                              ((ios->timing == MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR12) ||

Whoever decided to poorly pick these patches up against my will has
slightly messed this patch up - whereas my original patch left the
code correctly formatted, when whoever applied this patch did so, they
left an additional blank line in the above.

Hi Russell,

We kindly pinged you several times asking for your state and for the
PR, but I suppose you were just too busy. Your PR were kind of
blocking patches for sdhci, if you remember.

I wasn't "too busy".  I had walked away from all kernel maintanence in
disgust at the way many in the ARM community ignores questions, and
ignores patches which need testing - I'm talking there about the L2C
patch series which was extremely poorly tested, and still, to this day,
has questions outstanding.  Yes, the code now produces warnings.  It
produces warnings /because/ people were not willing to help.

Those warnings serve as a reminder that there's still problems which
need solving there, and they're not going to go away until those
problems are solved.

While I don't like pushing unfinished code into mainline, in this case,
others deemed the patch set too important _not_ to go into mainline
even with these problems.

Now, it's been /soo/ long since I worked on that patch set that my
knowledge has now diminished... so it's now going to be _much_ harder
to resolve those issues than it would have been three months ago.

And I'm also holding a grudge, and I bear grudges for a long time, so
expect me to be "difficult" towards Linux stuff for a while yet.

The mmc people were also very helping in sending patches to fixup
related regressions, immediately after we merged your patchset. Thus
together I think we managed to pull it off.

The formatting problem I refer to above is line 1532/1533 in sdhci.c -
there's an additional blank line which somehow got left behind, caused
presumably by insufficient attention paid to cleaning up a conflict
between my original patches and the state of the tree they were
applied to.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.