From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: ecovec: switch SDHI controllers to card polling Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:39:12 +0900 Message-ID: <20120328073912.GX26543@linux-sh.org> References: <20120328062753.GU26543@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:36:24PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > Polling for card hotplug events is a better option than using SDHI native > > > hotplug interrupt, because the latter option forces the controller to stay > > > permanently powered up and enabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski > > > --- > > > > > > It is a kind of an RFC. We do in general prefer SDHI polling to SDHI > > > native hotplug detection for the above reason, but there might well be > > > other reasons, why this is not a good idea in this specific case. If there > > > are such, I'd love to hear about them. > > > > > I've not heard any more about this one way or the other, so should I > > assume you still want it applied? At least we can revert it if one of > > these cases pops up, and in the interim it's always preferable to lean > > towards better power management for a default. > > Yes, agree, since noone objected so far (as if I really expected dozens of > people to pay attention to random RFC patches on the sh list;-)) let's > apply it. > Applied. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:39:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: ecovec: switch SDHI controllers to card polling Message-Id: <20120328073912.GX26543@linux-sh.org> List-Id: References: <20120328062753.GU26543@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 07:36:24PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > Polling for card hotplug events is a better option than using SDHI native > > > hotplug interrupt, because the latter option forces the controller to stay > > > permanently powered up and enabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski > > > --- > > > > > > It is a kind of an RFC. We do in general prefer SDHI polling to SDHI > > > native hotplug detection for the above reason, but there might well be > > > other reasons, why this is not a good idea in this specific case. If there > > > are such, I'd love to hear about them. > > > > > I've not heard any more about this one way or the other, so should I > > assume you still want it applied? At least we can revert it if one of > > these cases pops up, and in the interim it's always preferable to lean > > towards better power management for a default. > > Yes, agree, since noone objected so far (as if I really expected dozens of > people to pay attention to random RFC patches on the sh list;-)) let's > apply it. > Applied.