Re: New MMC maintainer needed

[Matt Fleming]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:13:28PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
>> Con:
>>
>>  - The scanning code gets less clear as you increase the number of
>>    possible paths through it.
>>
>>  - Different systems will have different init sequences, possibly
>>    provoking bugs in the cards.
>>
>>  - Host driver writers now have more capability bits they have to
>>    consider. And these might be less than obvious since SD/MMC/SDIO are
>>    normally compatible so these bits seem useless.
>>
>>  - With the current logic (which was better in the first version),
>>    "normal" drivers will have to explicitly state that they work as
>>    intended by setting all bits.
>
> And the pro is objective.
>
>> Pro:
>>
>>  - A slightly reduced scanning time.
>
> That's great!  Why do you disregard this so easily?
>

Ping. Adrian, do you have any initialisation times for this patch? I'm
afraid I don't have any eMMC hardware, so I'm not able to gather any
numbers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/