Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: improve ESDHC_FLAG_ERR010450

[Ulf Hansson]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:44, Giulio Benetti
<giulio.benetti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Ulf,
>
> On 16/08/23 23:36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 19:14, Giulio Benetti
> > <giulio.benetti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Ulf, and All,
> >>
> >> +Cc Andrew Lunn,
> >>
> >> On 16/08/23 11:52, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 23:49, Giulio Benetti
> >>> <giulio.benetti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Errata ERR010450 only shows up if voltage is 1.8V, but if the device is
> >>>> supplied by 3v3 the errata can be ignored. So let's check for if quirk
> >>>> SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V is defined or not before limiting the frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sponsored by: Tekvox Inc.
> >>>
> >>> Didn't know we have this kind of tag. Can you point me to the
> >>> documentation of it?
> >>
> >> I've been pointed by Andew Lunn almost the same question here:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/859ff6a9-3ba9-ea2e-7b85-01813c5df0dd@xxxxxxxxxxxx/t/
> >>
> >> and also asked to update:
> >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> >>
> >> I've taken inspiration by this commit:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=73c289bac05919286f8c7e1660fcaf6ec0468363
> >>
> >> where there is "Sponsored by:" and not "Sponsored-by:" otherwise
> >> checkpatch.pl script complains about it.
> >>
> >> Other commits already have that sort of tag.
> >
> > Yes, but that seems silly to me.
> >
> > We should not be using tags in this way. First there needs to be an
> > agreement of what kind of tags we should allow in the commit messages,
> > before we start using them.
> >
> >>
> >> I could add Sponsored-by tag documentation and in checkpatch.pl script
> >> as well as other possible scripts where required as pointed by Andrew.
> >>
> >> I think this is a good way to give credits to companies that sponsor
> >> patches and it could be more interesting for companies in general to
> >> pay someone to upstream patches because they have their name on it.
> >> Otherwise it's not an everyday task to add a driver from scratch
> >> and write in the top comment that is sponsored by some company.
> >> Also now there is SPDX so that part would be dropped too.
> >>
> >> What do you All think about this? Do I go for a RFC patchset to add
> >> the Sponsored-by: tag?
> >
> > My opinion is just one voice here, so at this point it doesn't really
> > matter what I think.
> >
> > If *you* think this is a good idea, I encourage you to submit an RFC
> > to the kernel docs for this. In this way we can collect the comments
> > and see if people think this is a good idea.
>
> Ok, I will go with a RFC soon,
>
> > That said, do you want me to apply $subject patch without the tag or
> > would you rather proceed with submitting an RFC first?
>
> It would be great if you can apply the patch without the tag please.

Patch applied for next, thanks!

Kind regards
Uffe