Hi Tom, Wolfgang, On 03/02/20 5:34 pm, Peng Fan wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] mmc: Add init() API >> >> Hi Peng, >> >> On 01/02/20 6:43 pm, Peng Fan wrote: >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] mmc: Add init() API >>>> >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> On 29/01/20 1:33 pm, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:52 PM Faiz Abbas <faiz_ab...@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Add an init() API for platform specific init() operations. >>>>> >>>>> Could you describe why this cannot be done in the probe callback? >>>>> It's not easily visible as the function you changed >>>>> (mmc_get_op_cond) doesn't even have a comment to describe what it >> does... >>>> >>>> The reason is detailed in 06/10 patch description. probe() is always >>>> called for all MMC instances. I only want to switch on power (by >>>> calling >>>> sdhci_init()) and suffer the 1 second wait time when there is >>>> actually a card in the slot and user wants to access it. >>>>> >>>>> In general, I think commit messages could be more detailed than one >>>>> line. If only to make it easier in the future to recap why things >>>>> have been >>>> done. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're right. I will add a more detailed patch description in v2. >>> >>> This patch is v2. Please v3. >>> >>> Could a quirk be added in probe and if card not there, just bypass? >>> Or you want quick boot to avoid probe all the controllers? >>> >> >> The issue is that we need to wait for 1 second to detect the card itself. I >> want >> to move that delay out from probe(). > > Understand. Then I am ok for patch. > > Please add more info in commit log in new version patchset. > >> >> BTW did you receive this mail directly or through the list? I had CC'd you >> but >> its not there in the patchwork headers. > > I am in the cc list of your first mail, but not from Simon's reply mail. >
So Peng got the email but the list is dropping CCs after it gets them. How do I avoid this in the future? Should I always add maintainers in To? Thanks, Faiz
