[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5ce23c7-d6b2-87ea-c659-29ffc977bfad@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:46:15 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Double Lo <double.lo@...ress.com>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Naveen Gupta <naveen.gupta@...ress.com>,
Madhan Mohan R <madhanmohan.r@...ress.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Wright Feng <wright.feng@...ress.com>,
Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
brcm80211-dev-list <brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mmc: core: Add sdio_retune_hold_now() and
sdio_retune_release()
On 14/06/19 7:38 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:10 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 01:42, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> We want SDIO drivers to be able to temporarily stop retuning when the
>>> driver knows that the SDIO card is not in a state where retuning will
>>> work (maybe because the card is asleep). We'll move the relevant
>>> functions to a place where drivers can call them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>>
>> This looks good to me.
>>
>> BTW, seems like this series is best funneled via my mmc tree, no? In
>> such case, I need acks for the brcmfmac driver patches.
>
> For patch #1 I think it could just go in directly to the wireless
> tree. It should be fine to land the rest of the patches separately.
>
> For patch #2 - #5 then what you say makes sense to me. I suppose
> you'd want at least a Reviewed-by from Arend and an Ack from Kalle on
> the Broadcom patches?
>
> I'd also suggest that we Cc stable explicitly when applying. That's
> easy for #2 and #3 since they have a Fixes tag. For #4 and #5 I guess
> the question is how far back to go. Maybe Adrian has an opinion here
> since I think he's the one who experienced these problems.
V4 seemed to apply cleanly back to v4.18
Powered by blists - more mailing lists