From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [MX25][MMC] mmc esdhc failure in 3.3-rc5 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:24:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20120312132423.GC2459@pengutronix.de> References: <5e57eb999780335721212bb8d411406f@mail.fqingenieria.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM" Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:49663 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753456Ab2CLNYZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:24:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e57eb999780335721212bb8d411406f@mail.fqingenieria.es> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: joancarles Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org --PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > What could have changed between 2.6.39.3 and 3.3-rc5 to trigger this > behaviour? A quick look at >=20 > git diff v2.6.39 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c I'd recommend: git log v2.6.39.. drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c and look at those commits. You should also include the people who did those commits in CC when writing mails, otherwise they probably won't notice. Richard Zhu and Shawn Guo are from Freescale, and have more knowledge about the ESDHC cores. Wild guessing, 97e4ba6a5ea903a221d87bcabdaf01efb0a609a5 looks like the most likely candidate, but I may be totally wrong. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d+QcACgkQD27XaX1/VRtkXQCdGce6Y+pI+0MzG0+XzBFpRixu y3cAnRloPrjFW233UAkgIHz+PL8GZDaD =lbln -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM--