Re: [RFC PATCH 0/21] Totally remove SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION quirk

[Ulf Hansson]

On 27 January 2016 at 14:23, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:59:14PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> In my view Ulf needs to explain how the SDHCI library is going to work,
>> particularly in the absence of new callbacks.
>
> We need to add new callbacks as part of the conversion to a library,
> otherwise we're very much into a total rewrite from scratch (which
> I think is far too much work, and prone to errors) or a big flag day
> to switch everything over (which will require a moritorium on sdhci
> patches while the effort to switch everything is ongoing.)
>
> Both of those approaches suffer from one huge drawback: there is no
> way to bisect between them to locate the cause of a regression.
>
> A piece-meal approach, where the driver is gradually converted is a
> far saner approach, because it means that each conversion in the step
> can be done as a series of transformations, which not only can be
> properly reviewed, but also bisected - and that is _hugely_ important
> for the existing state of SDHCI.
>
> The chances of some hardware behavioural quirk being missed while
> trying to convert SDHCI to a library are _extremely_ high, and the
> only sane approach to this is one which allows a progressive
> transformation of the driver.
>
> Also, the last thing we want is for drivers to end up duplicating
> entire functions from sdhci.c just because they have one thing
> different (eg, because they need to do something in the middle of
> a set_ios() call which no other SDHCI driver needs.)  Having such
> code duplication will just make maintanence even more of a
> nightmare.
>
> set_ios() is probably one of the worst functions in sdhci right now,
> and there's no obvious way to split it up into several stand-alone
> functions which drivers could chain together.
>
> I think what needs to happen here is that Ulf needs to leave such
> decisions about what is acceptable or unacceptable to those who are
> trying to convert sdhci to a library, otherwise the conversion will
> probably never happen... unless Ulf wants to get directly involved
> in the conversion effort, producing patches to make it happen.
>

I don't intend to contribute much with actual patches. I am willing to
help review and also help with expertise around the PM related parts.

I do realize that some callbacks may still be needed, even in the end
when sdhci has become a pure library. Although, those should be far
less then those we have today.

Currently I am more or less unable to properly maintain sdhci because
of it's bad code structure. Therefore I have taken a quite simple
approach by rejecting new callbacks and quirks, in a way to prevent it
from being worse. To me, the best way forward would be if some of you
experienced sdhci developers stepped in as a maintainer for it. In
that way, I can trust the development moving in the "library
direction" so I can pull back from nacking potential interim sdhci
callbacks/quirks.

Does it make sense?

Kind regards
Uffe