Re: [PATCH 1/1]mmc: set timeout for SDHCI host before sending busycmd

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:43:52PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> +1. A full cycle in linux-next might an idea to be on the safe side? That
> would be 2.6.40-material then. Or too slow?

I think it could be okay to merge for .39, but that's mainly because I
don't think we start getting testing with a lot of cards until patches
appear in an -rc1 -- so for something that requires broad testing, I'd
rather merge it for -rc1 with a plan to revert it if we find anything
unexpected.

But I don't have a strong opinion, so if anyone thinks there's a reason
to wait (for example, an existence-proof of a card that misbehaves when
configured with a max timeout value) then I'm happy to do so.

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/