From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support PXA168/PXA910/MMP2 SD Host Controller Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:18:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20100921161807.GA18231@void.printf.net> References: <20100920095042.GC4058@pengutronix.de> <20100920131055.GE4058@pengutronix.de> <20100921101116.GE3168@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:33236 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757434Ab0IUQSJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:18:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100921101116.GE3168@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: zhangfei gao , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Kyungmin Park , eric.y.miao@gmail.com, Haojian Zhuang Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:11:16PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I guess to fully understand all constraints, one must really working > with your platform, what I don't do. I agree that a nicely working > driver is better than no driver; however, I fear once a driver hit the > mainline being non-pltfm, it will hardly be converted later, even if it > was considered to be worthwhile. So this is why I ask initially if it > couldn't be done. > > Chris, do you see a rule of thumb here? Or what are your preferences? I agree with you entirely: even if we end up deciding not to use -pltfm here (which looks like it's probably going to be the case), we should at least specify what's stopping us from doing so and look into extending -pltfm so that it might be useful next time around. So, thank you for asking those questions! - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child