[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaHU0A2dbjpuy9N85vJqEVxqBpfjzcjjWPa25rR3wGNzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:29:36 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 05/10] mmc: cqhci: support for command queue enabled host
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> On 09/11/17 14:26, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>> I think the above approach to put any CQE-specific callbacks
>>>> directly into the struct mmc_host_ops is way more viable.
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with CQE. This is CQHCI. Please try to get the difference.
>>
>> I am trying, please try to think about your language.
>
> I strongly disapprove of being rude but sadly it seems to get results.
Conflict is a natural part of human existence. Using it deliberately
to get one's way is manipulation. Admitting to being manipulative
is losing one's face in public.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists