| Message ID | 1400873087-20921-3-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Pantelis Antoniou |
| Headers | show |
Hi Stephen, On May 23, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > Currently, U-Boot behaves as follows: > > - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" > - Execute: mmc dev 1 > - This fails, since there is no card > - User plugs in an SD card > - Execute: mmc dev 1 > - This still fails, since the HW isn't reprobed. > > With this change, U-Boot behaves as follows: > > - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" > - Execute: mmc dev 1 > - This fails, since there is no card > - User plugs in an SD card > - Execute: mmc dev 1 > - The newly present SD card is detected > > I know that "mmc rescan" will force the HW to be reprobed, but I feel it > makes more sense if "mmc dev" always reprobes the HW after selecting the > current MMC device. This allows scripts to just execute "mmc dev", and > not have to also execute "mmc rescan" to check for media presense. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > --- > common/cmd_mmc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/common/cmd_mmc.c b/common/cmd_mmc.c > index 6c8db2e78c4f..1e40983c757b 100644 > --- a/common/cmd_mmc.c > +++ b/common/cmd_mmc.c > @@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ static int do_mmc_dev(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, > return CMD_RET_USAGE; > } > > - mmc = init_mmc_device(dev, false); > + mmc = init_mmc_device(dev, true); > if (!mmc) > return CMD_RET_FAILURE; > > -- > 1.8.1.5 > Behavioral change that no one could possibly depend on, so I'll just go ahead and get it in. Thanks, applied. -- Pantelis Acked-by: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com>
On 06/12/2014 05:31 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > On May 23, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Currently, U-Boot behaves as follows: >> >> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This fails, since there is no card >> - User plugs in an SD card >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This still fails, since the HW isn't reprobed. >> >> With this change, U-Boot behaves as follows: >> >> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This fails, since there is no card >> - User plugs in an SD card >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - The newly present SD card is detected ... > Thanks, applied. > > -- Pantelis > > Acked-by: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> Thanks very much for applying these. I'm puzzled why you write Acked-by in the emails, and add it to the commit descriptions when you apply them? FWIW for reference: Acked-by as used by the Linux kernel is usually only used when giving permission to a different maintainer to apply the patches, rather than taking them through the usual tree. Signed-off-by is the tag usually used when applying commits yourself, although there's an unresolved question re: whether adding s-o-b (or presumably anything at all) to commits when applying them is appropriate behaviour for U-Boot.
Hi Stephen, On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/12/2014 05:31 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >> On May 23, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> Currently, U-Boot behaves as follows: >>> >>> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >>> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >>> - This fails, since there is no card >>> - User plugs in an SD card >>> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >>> - This still fails, since the HW isn't reprobed. >>> >>> With this change, U-Boot behaves as follows: >>> >>> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >>> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >>> - This fails, since there is no card >>> - User plugs in an SD card >>> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >>> - The newly present SD card is detected > ... >> Thanks, applied. >> >> -- Pantelis >> >> Acked-by: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> > > Thanks very much for applying these. > > I'm puzzled why you write Acked-by in the emails, and add it to the > commit descriptions when you apply them? FWIW for reference: Acked-by as > used by the Linux kernel is usually only used when giving permission to > a different maintainer to apply the patches, rather than taking them > through the usual tree. Signed-off-by is the tag usually used when > applying commits yourself, although there's an unresolved question re: > whether adding s-o-b (or presumably anything at all) to commits when > applying them is appropriate behaviour for U-Boot. Patchwork adds the Acked-by: line in the patches, and when I apply the patch I know for sure that I have actually reviewed the patch, and didn't just apply it blindly. Just a way to not let things slip in. Regards -- Pantelis
diff --git a/common/cmd_mmc.c b/common/cmd_mmc.c index 6c8db2e78c4f..1e40983c757b 100644 --- a/common/cmd_mmc.c +++ b/common/cmd_mmc.c @@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ static int do_mmc_dev(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, return CMD_RET_USAGE; } - mmc = init_mmc_device(dev, false); + mmc = init_mmc_device(dev, true); if (!mmc) return CMD_RET_FAILURE;