[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200419072030.GB3544449@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:20:30 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
Cc: adrian.hunter@...el.com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
baolin.wang@...aro.org, kstewart@...uxfoundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, bradleybolen@...il.com, faiz_abbas@...com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, bbiswas@...dia.com,
anrao@...dia.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19.113 0/3] Fix for long operation cmds busy detection
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> This series includes manually backported changes that implements Tegra
> specific timeout callback to switch between finite and infinite HW busy
> detection wait modes.
>
> sdhci-tegra driver patch implements set_timeout callback based on one of
> the sdhci host driver patch that refactors sdhci_set_timeout and allows
> drivers to call __sdhci_set_timeout with their timeout callback
> implementation.
>
> Both of these patches are manually backported in this series.
Is this a bugfix or a new feature? I can't tell, but it feels like it's
a new feature. What's wrong with just using the 5.4.y kernel tree?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists