From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sdhci-s3c: Add support no internal clock divider in host controller Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:59:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20100917155928.GA7561@void.printf.net> References: <1284626223-18944-1-git-send-email-jeongbae.seo@samsung.com> <1284626223-18944-6-git-send-email-jeongbae.seo@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:51801 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753854Ab0IQP7f (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:59:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Kyungmin Park Cc: Jeongbae Seo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Hyuk Lee , =?utf-8?B?7KCV7J6s7ZuI?= Hi, On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:08:28PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > Well there are two implementations. and no conclusion yet. > as s5pc210 don't support internal SDHCI clock, DMC overrides the > function operation itself when s5pc210. System LSI use the quirks. > > Choose any one from MMC maintainer. Both approaches are generally acceptable for MMC, so I would want to leave it up to the maintainer of the driver in question (which is Ben, in this case?) to choose between them. That said, I think my own mild preference is for Jaehoon's approach. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child