[PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Linus Walleij]

From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.

Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
Cc: Per Forlin <per.forlin@stericsson.com>
Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 3321d75..3f280f6 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -630,7 +630,8 @@ F:	drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.*
 F:	include/linux/amba/kmi.h
 
 ARM PRIMECELL MMCI PL180/1 DRIVER
-S:	Orphan
+M:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
+L:	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
 F:	drivers/mmc/host/mmci.*
 
 ARM PRIMECELL BUS SUPPORT
-- 
1.7.9.2

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Ulf Hansson]

Hi Linus,

Great initiative! Of course you get my Ack.

Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>

Br
Ulf Hansson

On 03/15/2012 03:30 PM, Linus WALLEIJ wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
> So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
> to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
> I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
> integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
> either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.
>
> Cc: Ulf Hansson<ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Per Forlin<per.forlin@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Pawel Moll<pawel.moll@arm.com>
> Cc: Russell King<rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
>   MAINTAINERS |    3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 3321d75..3f280f6 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -630,7 +630,8 @@ F:	drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.*
>   F:	include/linux/amba/kmi.h
>
>   ARM PRIMECELL MMCI PL180/1 DRIVER
> -S:	Orphan
> +M:	Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> +L:	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
>   F:	drivers/mmc/host/mmci.*
>
>   ARM PRIMECELL BUS SUPPORT

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Per Förlin]

On 03/15/2012 03:30 PM, Linus WALLEIJ wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> 
> So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
> to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
> I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
> integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
> either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.
> 
> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Per Forlin <per.forlin@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
> Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 3321d75..3f280f6 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -630,7 +630,8 @@ F:	drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.*
>  F:	include/linux/amba/kmi.h
>  
>  ARM PRIMECELL MMCI PL180/1 DRIVER
> -S:	Orphan
> +M:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> +L:	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
>  F:	drivers/mmc/host/mmci.*
>  
>  ARM PRIMECELL BUS SUPPORT

Acked-by: Per Forlin <per.forlin@stericsson.com>

Thanks,
Per

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Pawel Moll]

On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 14:30 +0000, Linus Walleij wrote:
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 3321d75..3f280f6 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -630,7 +630,8 @@ F:	drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.*
>  F:	include/linux/amba/kmi.h
>  
>  ARM PRIMECELL MMCI PL180/1 DRIVER
> -S:	Orphan

You probably meant

+S:	Maintained

> +M:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> +L:	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
>  F:	drivers/mmc/host/mmci.*
>  
>  ARM PRIMECELL BUS SUPPORT

By all means!

Acked-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>

Cheers!

Paweł

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Russell King]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:30:36PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> 
> So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
> to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
> I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
> integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
> either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.

Actually, I still want to be involved because I'm far from convinced with
some of the patches coming from Ulf are correct for ARMs implementation.
That's why I'm purposely not applying the MMCI patches in the patch system
in a particularly fast manner - I want there to be a decent amount of
testing between each set of patches.

For example, the next patch in the series to be applied is:

"mmc: mmci: Decrease current consumption in suspend"

and as I've explained before, it does this by saving the MMCI power and
clock registers and clearing them.  This has the effect of stopping the
clock, and in the case of ARMs hardware, removing power from the card.
Therefore, the card will require full bring up, including reassigning
the card address for MMC cards on resume, and simply starting the next
command will not be possible.

As I've already tried to explain, on the normal power management suspend
callback, these registers should _already_ have been placed into their
"card not present" state, so saving and zeroing them has no useful effect.

Moreover, saving and restoring them across suspend is wrong because on
ARM hardware there's a sequence of power-off, power-up, power-on which
needs to be gone through to restore power.

So, I've queued up the 10 patches which I'm happy to take for v3.4, and
that's all I'm taking for v3.4 until I can find the strength to have
another discussion with Ulf over this issue.

As there's an interdependence between the various patches, I can't apply
any of the later patches even if I wanted to without these "power saving"
patches.

So, it's not really unmaintained or orphaned...

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Linus Walleij]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Actually, I still want to be involved because I'm far from convinced with
> some of the patches coming from Ulf are correct for ARMs implementation.

OK fine with me.

> That's why I'm purposely not applying the MMCI patches in the patch system
> in a particularly fast manner - I want there to be a decent amount of
> testing between each set of patches.

I understand this. I will try to help out more then, I have
the following systems:

- ARM Integrator/CP (PL181!)
- ARM RealView PB1176 (PL180)
- U300 (PL180 derivate)
- U8500 (PL180 derivate)

For the next round of series from Ulf I'll be happy to stress
these a bit.

> For example, the next patch in the series to be applied is:
>
> "mmc: mmci: Decrease current consumption in suspend"
(...)
> As there's an interdependence between the various patches, I can't apply
> any of the later patches even if I wanted to without these "power saving"
> patches.

OK Ulf, can you reorder your patch queue pushing that patch
towards the end so Russell can (hopefully) apply the less
controversial stuff (like the SDIO fixes and so on)?

> So, it's not really unmaintained or orphaned...

OK, shall I propose a patch simply adding you as maintainer?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Ulf Hansson]

Hi Russell,

On 03/15/2012 06:30 PM, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:30:36PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> From: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>>
>> So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
>> to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
>> I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
>> integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
>> either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.
>
> Actually, I still want to be involved because I'm far from convinced with
> some of the patches coming from Ulf are correct for ARMs implementation.
> That's why I'm purposely not applying the MMCI patches in the patch system
> in a particularly fast manner - I want there to be a decent amount of
> testing between each set of patches.
>

Without going into too much details about the patches I will just say 
that I have very much appreciated your review comments on my patches 
historical. That has definitely improved the quality and I have gained 
even more knowledge. Thanks a lot!

Although, right know I would vote for having a more active maintainer 
for MMCI; please no offense Russell, I realize that your are fully 
occupied with a lot of other cool stuff. I think Linus could play a 
great role in this; especially since he also will be able to test 
patches on many different ARM boards.


> For example, the next patch in the series to be applied is:
>
> "mmc: mmci: Decrease current consumption in suspend"
>
> and as I've explained before, it does this by saving the MMCI power and
> clock registers and clearing them.  This has the effect of stopping the
> clock, and in the case of ARMs hardware, removing power from the card.
> Therefore, the card will require full bring up, including reassigning
> the card address for MMC cards on resume, and simply starting the next
> command will not be possible.
>
> As I've already tried to explain, on the normal power management suspend
> callback, these registers should _already_ have been placed into their
> "card not present" state, so saving and zeroing them has no useful effect.
>
> Moreover, saving and restoring them across suspend is wrong because on
> ARM hardware there's a sequence of power-off, power-up, power-on which
> needs to be gone through to restore power.
>
> So, I've queued up the 10 patches which I'm happy to take for v3.4, and
> that's all I'm taking for v3.4 until I can find the strength to have
> another discussion with Ulf over this issue.

I have yet not gained your full confidence, but I will continue to work 
on it. :-)

Regarding the around 10 patches; since it lately has been very responses 
to my patches for MMCI, I have hesitated to send more patches. 
Internally at STE kernel git, we have around additional 10 patches... 
bugfixes, cleanups and new features (UHS support, DDR support).

>
> As there's an interdependence between the various patches, I can't apply
> any of the later patches even if I wanted to without these "power saving"
> patches.
>
> So, it's not really unmaintained or orphaned...
>

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Russell King]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:48:07AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Although, right know I would vote for having a more active maintainer  
> for MMCI; please no offense Russell, I realize that your are fully  
> occupied with a lot of other cool stuff. I think Linus could play a  
> great role in this; especially since he also will be able to test  
> patches on many different ARM boards.

No, I explained why I haven't applied your other patches, and I explained
at the time my concerns with your patches which zero out and restore the
power and clock registers.  I repeated those concerns several times but
the issue never got resolved.

So that gives me no other option than to slow down applying your patches.
It's not that I'm not being responsive.  It's that I'm purposely being
slow over these changes because comments on the patches don't seem to be
hitting home.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Ulf Hansson]

On 03/16/2012 09:53 AM, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:48:07AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> Although, right know I would vote for having a more active maintainer
>> for MMCI; please no offense Russell, I realize that your are fully
>> occupied with a lot of other cool stuff. I think Linus could play a
>> great role in this; especially since he also will be able to test
>> patches on many different ARM boards.
>
> No, I explained why I haven't applied your other patches, and I explained
> at the time my concerns with your patches which zero out and restore the
> power and clock registers.  I repeated those concerns several times but
> the issue never got resolved.
>
> So that gives me no other option than to slow down applying your patches.
> It's not that I'm not being responsive.  It's that I'm purposely being
> slow over these changes because comments on the patches don't seem to be
> hitting home.
>

Then I totally misunderstood you. I did send you an explanation to why 
the registers could be zeroed out, which you did not respond to.

Moreover, I did not receive any comments/acks on the other patches. Are 
you only looking at the first one in a patch series or do you mean that 
the other onces looks OK? If so, I can definitely try to rebase the 
series and move the power management patches later in serie... Just tell 
me and I will do it!


Br
Ulf Hansson

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Russell King]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:24:44AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 09:53 AM, Russell King wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:48:07AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> Although, right know I would vote for having a more active maintainer
>>> for MMCI; please no offense Russell, I realize that your are fully
>>> occupied with a lot of other cool stuff. I think Linus could play a
>>> great role in this; especially since he also will be able to test
>>> patches on many different ARM boards.
>>
>> No, I explained why I haven't applied your other patches, and I explained
>> at the time my concerns with your patches which zero out and restore the
>> power and clock registers.  I repeated those concerns several times but
>> the issue never got resolved.
>>
>> So that gives me no other option than to slow down applying your patches.
>> It's not that I'm not being responsive.  It's that I'm purposely being
>> slow over these changes because comments on the patches don't seem to be
>> hitting home.
>>
>
> Then I totally misunderstood you. I did send you an explanation to why  
> the registers could be zeroed out, which you did not respond to.

Yes, because you completely misunderstood what I said to you.  I showed
you with extracts from the code what happens on suspend - the IOS
handler will be called to turn power off unless mmc_card_keep_power()
is set (which only a very few SDIO cards would set.)

You replied saying that if the IOS handler is called, the card power and
clock will be cut.  Yes, we both agree with that, that's not what I'm
trying to discuss.  What I'm trying to find out is why you want to save
the power and clock registers after that's happened, zero them, and then
simply restore them on resume.

When you can properly explain that, it may be that a better solution is
to fix the core such when mmc_card_keep_power() is set, it really does
only stop the power being cut on suspend, but still results in the core
asking for the clock to be stopped.

> Moreover, I did not receive any comments/acks on the other patches. Are  
> you only looking at the first one in a patch series or do you mean that  
> the other onces looks OK?

No idea, it's been such a long time since I looked at them that I've long
forgotten what I thought about the remainder.  What I do know is that I
could not apply any further patches without the one which is under
discussion.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: assume maintainership

[Chris Ball]

Hi Russell,

On Thu, Mar 15 2012, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:30:36PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> 
>> So since this driver is crucial for us (as in ST-Ericsson)
>> to have actively maintained, and since it is marked orphaned
>> I will assume maintainership for it starting with the 3.5
>> integration cycle. The idea is to collect patches and send
>> either patch sets of pull requests to Chris.
>
> Actually, I still want to be involved because I'm far from convinced with
> some of the patches coming from Ulf are correct for ARMs implementation.
> That's why I'm purposely not applying the MMCI patches in the patch system
> in a particularly fast manner - I want there to be a decent amount of
> testing between each set of patches.
> [..]
> So, it's not really unmaintained or orphaned...

Please could you send a MAINTAINERS patch to Linus adding yourself for MMCI?

Thanks,

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@laptop.org>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child