> Instead of applying this revert, I decided to just drop the original
> commit from my next branch.
H, yes, rebasing creates a clean history for occasions like this,
but makes working on your next-branch kinda complicated if the base I
merged has gone.
> While working on new version of how
On 3 August 2017 at 11:53, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:49:47AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> This reverts commit 785b215250310c690142abb1bdbb0767b8487c49. There is a
>> secondary SDHI instance on Gen2 with has a 32-bit wide SDBUF register
>> while all
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org; Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au>;
> Biju Das <biju@bp.renesas.com>; Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org>;
> Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhi: use maxi
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:49:47AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> This reverts commit 785b215250310c690142abb1bdbb0767b8487c49. There is a
> secondary SDHI instance on Gen2 with has a 32-bit wide SDBUF register
> while all other registers are 16 bit apart. So, the logic used here does
> not apply
This reverts commit 785b215250310c690142abb1bdbb0767b8487c49. There is a
secondary SDHI instance on Gen2 with has a 32-bit wide SDBUF register
while all other registers are 16 bit apart. So, the logic used here does
not apply and we need to rethink this and start cleanly from scratch.