From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mmc: core: Add sdio_retune_hold_now() and sdio_retune_release() Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:46:15 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20190613234153.59309-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20190613234153.59309-5-dianders@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson , Ulf Hansson , Arend van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo , brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com, "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , Double Lo , Brian Norris , linux-wireless , Naveen Gupta , Madhan Mohan R , Matthias Kaehlcke , Wright Feng , Chi-Hsien Lin , netdev , brcm80211-dev-list , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org On 14/06/19 7:38 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:10 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 01:42, Douglas Anderson wrote: >>> >>> We want SDIO drivers to be able to temporarily stop retuning when the >>> driver knows that the SDIO card is not in a state where retuning will >>> work (maybe because the card is asleep). We'll move the relevant >>> functions to a place where drivers can call them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson >> >> This looks good to me. >> >> BTW, seems like this series is best funneled via my mmc tree, no? In >> such case, I need acks for the brcmfmac driver patches. > > For patch #1 I think it could just go in directly to the wireless > tree. It should be fine to land the rest of the patches separately. > > For patch #2 - #5 then what you say makes sense to me. I suppose > you'd want at least a Reviewed-by from Arend and an Ack from Kalle on > the Broadcom patches? > > I'd also suggest that we Cc stable explicitly when applying. That's > easy for #2 and #3 since they have a Fixes tag. For #4 and #5 I guess > the question is how far back to go. Maybe Adrian has an opinion here > since I think he's the one who experienced these problems. V4 seemed to apply cleanly back to v4.18