[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110224212429.GB12913@void.printf.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:24:30 +0000
From: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Philip Rakity <prakity@...vell.com>,
"Dong, Chuanxiao" <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
Jae hoon Chung <jh80.chung@...il.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1]mmc: set timeout for SDHCI host before sending busy
cmd
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:43:52PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> +1. A full cycle in linux-next might an idea to be on the safe side? That
> would be 2.6.40-material then. Or too slow?
I think it could be okay to merge for .39, but that's mainly because I
don't think we start getting testing with a lot of cards until patches
appear in an -rc1 -- so for something that requires broad testing, I'd
rather merge it for -rc1 with a plan to revert it if we find anything
unexpected.
But I don't have a strong opinion, so if anyone thinks there's a reason
to wait (for example, an existence-proof of a card that misbehaves when
configured with a max timeout value) then I'm happy to do so.
Thanks,
--
Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists