Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhi: use maximum width for the sdbuf register"

> 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

Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhi: use maximum width for the sdbuf register"

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

RE: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhi: use maximum width for the sdbuf register"

Tested this patch on iWave RZ/G1M platform. Tested-by: Biju Das Regards, Biju > -Original Message- > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com] > Sent: 03 August 2017 10:50 > To: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > Cc:

Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhi: use maximum width for the sdbuf register"

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