[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 3/6] mmc: mmc_spi: Re-write driver using DM framework

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mmc: mmc_spi: Re-write driver using DM
> framework
> 
> Hi Peng,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bin
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mmc: mmc_spi: Re-write driver using DM
> > > framework
> > >
> > > Hi Peng,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:36 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anup,
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 3/6] mmc: mmc_spi: Re-write driver using DM
> > > > > framework
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Bhargav Shah <bhargavshah1988 at gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch rewrites MMC SPI driver using U-Boot DM framework and
> > > > > get it's working on SiFive Unleashed board.
> > > >
> > > > So you drop the non-DM part, I saw there are still one user
> > > > ./include/configs/UCP1020.h:441:#define CONFIG_MMC_SPI
> > > >
> > > > Will this switching to DM break that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is addressed by the next patch in this series, by removing all
> > > non-DM stuff from UCP1020 board as that board does not support DM at
> all.
> >
> > Not related to the UCP1020 board.
> > But SPL_DM is not a must, so removing the non-DM support will break
> > non DM SPL I understand there might be users now, but is it really
> > good to totally remove the non-DM code?
> 
> I think if some board in the future that wants to support this MMC SPI in SPL
> without DM, someone needs to add that support back. Keep the codes
> un-maintained and un-tested in the mainline is not so good IMHO.

ok.

Anup,
I saw the patchset was assigned to me in patchwork.
But patch 1/6 is an SPI driver.
Do you expect me to take the series?

Jagan, are you ok? Or assign this 1/6 to you?

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Regards,
> Bin