> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:10 PM
> To: Yangbo Lu
> Cc: Scott Wood; Lu Yangbo-B47093; linux-mmc; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; Leo li
> Subject: Re: [v4, 5/6] mmc: kconfig: select FSL_GUTS for
> MMC_SDHCI_OF_ESDHC
>
> On 28 December 2015 at 11:26, Yangbo Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:31 PM
> >> To: Scott Wood
> >> Cc: Lu Yangbo-B47093; linux-mmc; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; Leo li
> >> Subject: Re: [v4, 5/6] mmc: kconfig: select FSL_GUTS for
> >> MMC_SDHCI_OF_ESDHC
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And I think stubs for reading SVR is quite a bad idea. It'll make
> >> >> the driver build but it will silently not be able to apply
> >> >> SVR-based
> >> workarounds.
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't have to be "silent", the driver can return an error (and
> >> > print error messages) from its ->probe() method, if the calls to
> >> > the GUTS driver fails.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, I mentioned this idea only to understand the need for
> >> > *optional* GUTS supports. Perhaps there is a cross SOC drivers that
> >> > for some platforms depends on GUTS but on others it doesn't.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe that isn't case then!?
> >>
> >> Can you please answer this question!?
> >>
> >> According to the earlier versions of this patchset and from your
> >> comments [1], it *do* seems like the GUTS driver may be optional and
> >> thus stubs could address this.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Uffe
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg34412.html
> >
> > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] Hi Scott and Uffe,
> > In the earlier version, I'd like to use syscon support and only add
> 'syscon' compatible in the dts whose eSDHC needs to use it to get SVR.
> > But I never thought this had caused so much discussion... :(
>
> Sorry, I understand your frustration but that's life sometimes. :-)
>
[Lu Yangbo-B47093] Thank you so much for your understanding :)
> To me, the syscon solution is more elegant...
>
> > Could we reach an agreement about the 'optional' or not 'optional'?
>
> ...but I am fine with the current approach as well, as long as my recent
> comments gets addressed. Let's make it optional.
>
> Address Scott's and my review-comments, get other peoples ack for the
> non-mmc parts, then I will happily pick up the patches.
>
[Lu Yangbo-B47093] Thanks a lot. I would add other reviewers in next version.
> Kind regards
> Uffe
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��g"��^n�r���z���h�����&�� �G���h�(�階�ݢj"���m������z�ޖ���f���h���~�m�
