Re: [PATCH 0/9 v3] add DMA support to tmio_mmc, using dmaengine API, use it on SH

[Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 08:42:42AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:07:07 +0200 (CEST)
> > Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > 2.6.35 release is approaching and Ian hasn't found time yet to review this 
> > > series, so I was wondering, maybe you could take it into mm at least for 
> > > now?
> > 
> > Well I did, but I don't know how useful that was.
> > 
> > WHo is the most appropriate tree-maintainer to review and possibly
> > merge these?
> 
> Samuel has already acked the MFD patch:
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/7985
> 
> (please, add this his ack to the patch too). Most of the patches in the 
> series are SuperH- or SH-Mobile specific, which makes Paul (added to CC) 
> the perfect candidate to review them. There is only one tmio-specific 
> patch, and it is also the most complicated one. You or Paul can certainly 
> just follow it to verify, that it doesn't introduce any regressions. I can 
> also confirm it, because I also tested the patched driver without DMA 
> loaded, and it worked just like before in PIO mode. It would, however, be 
> great to test the patches on a non-sdhi hardware, of which none of us, 
> probably, has any. I added Philipp Zabel to CC, who has contributed a few 
> patches to tmio_mmc in the past, perhaps, he still has access to the 
> hardware and could test these patches.
> 
I don't have any problems taking all of the SH and SDHI related bits, but
since they all depend on the tmio_mmc change I haven't picked them up
yet. They'll likely continue to sit in my patch queue until something
happens with the tmio_mmc changes. Given the response times we've had
with any tmio related changes in the past I'm not exactly betting on a
speedy resolution..