From: Ulf Hansson
Date: Thu Jan 28 2016 - 10:16:33 EST


>> 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?
> I am happy to help and even be the SDHCI maintainer if Russell King and
> others agree. I have an interest in sdhci-acpi and sdhci-pci and also there
> is UHS-II and ADMA3 on the horizon.

That's really great news. Thank you very much Adrian!

Perhaps Russell is willing to help co-maintain it?

> I agree with Russell that a re-write would introduce more bugs and more work
> than it would be worth. Making many small steps in the general direction is
> preferable.
> Initially it would nice to see it made easy for drivers to replace specific
> mmc ops and sdhci ops and then call the standard version before/after doing
> some custom code. For example, P L Sai Krishna's auto-tuning problem might
> be solved by something to the effect of:
> int arasan_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
> {
> struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
> int err;
> err = sdhci_execute_tuning(mmc, opcode);
> if (!err)
> arasan_tune_sdclk(host);
> return err;
> }
> And Wan Zongshun also wanted to be able directly to replace
> sdhci_execute_tuning() from sdhci-pci.
> As suggested, my get_cd problem could also be solved by replacing the mmc
> get_cd op.

Sounds like a perfect plan!

Do you want to send a patch to the MAINTAINERS file?

>From my side I can also continue doing the administrative part of the
work, so there's need for you to set up a separate git tree or send
pull request. At least initially.
Instead I will just pick patches that's been acked by you (and
possibly Russell).

Kind regards