[PATCH 00/11] fsl_esdhc_imx: port several patches from fsl_esdhc

Sean Anderson seanga2 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 6 02:03:48 CET 2021

On 11/5/21 7:32 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2021-11-05 18:39, schrieb Sean Anderson:
>> This series ports some of the patches from fsl_esdhc to fsl_esdhc_imx.
>> Because these drivers share a common lineage, many of these patches
>> apply with minor changes. For each one, I have noted the originating
>> commit in the style of linux stable backports.
>> In fa33d20749 ("mmc: split fsl_esdhc driver for i.MX"), Yangbo says
>>> For the two series processors, the eSDHCs are becoming more and more different
>> However, these drivers are still extremely similar; the differences
>> between them are not major. However, NXP has not done a good job of
>> porting patches which apply to both drivers. This causes the
>> fsl_esdhc_imx driver to rot, as the fsl_esdhc gets more general fixes.
>> For this reason, I think that the fsl_esdhc_imx driver should be removed
>> unless NXP can commit to creating series like this which port patches
>> which apply to both drivers.
> But you are still doing patches for it? ;) Wouldn't it be easier
> to just merge them again? 

Well, I actually did all the work for these patches back in April but
never got around to posting them. So it's much easier for me to post
these than to merge the drivers :)

Unfortunately, there *are* feature differences that make it non-trivial
to un-split these drivers.

> Funny enough, I ported some changes from the imx version to the
> non-imx version.

Yeah, this is the other half of the coin; now we have to have two
versions of many patches.

> So yes I agree, this situation isn't optimal. And I don't think
> it makes any sense to port patches between these two. IMHO nobody
> will care for both at the same time, let alone being able to test
> it.

Yeah. There's a bit of an implicit promise of that from NXP, but they
haven't followed through.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list