linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/21] Totally remove SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoBdJ-5sXyJpTNxDJVJSUA+Gsjc+0+uLedNZCHYcF+rvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:16:27 +0100
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	P L Sai Krishna <lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@...inx.com>,
	Wan Zongshun <vincent.wan@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/21] Totally remove SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION quirk

[...]

>> 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
Uffe