From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d; helo=mail-it0-x22d.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5C6220C1C33 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x13so10181726iti.4 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:56:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f1tA6xulj3ZBF8nqzv1UVyTkzR1fZtlyQuSodd6C/F4=; b=XUlOEA5ooOHa2uBEoY9mntbQW+pY43t9MmkDa/MaJYdh4sPwMX6Tgc7TiqY4ddduwS 5SlRfSHt83sJYpJWeZxFt+f2IkI0M+8e23wFIpqvFgu48kD+WABtfsgp6V8XrpGmjXwr LUDkhcNRjO0NBd2xli8X87cm4kgxmG0xtRlvA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f1tA6xulj3ZBF8nqzv1UVyTkzR1fZtlyQuSodd6C/F4=; b=uab9vjVqtT+U5JodCwbpsmL49kRIYSu2rFw4jfIQaHSkjZGW+ZbUmkhZEgXn3LKaI8 9aKh/7RyNTv7SR62xxQSZ44/gdTrVIZg18yKjnfgJI8xMgY0/bK4HRQamWNM1RZ5zQX0 Sf6dvirIGX/JD/ig3H4lieBBzyFUyX1JqM+DLOC9qzQ9gvO+JgeVJ8vc33ZxeH9rjS/Z +9+GFwH5IQVZE0g4/VHEM0MAifW7A0+rcOcv8iwOd2GZkVLNcvLw3+bV3AZTvY+8VERy vtgSgxenrtRDyjlc3XITNIPMHwXEPXqzMLPkIlwMt6+EaTWFholGKARXnGOARJi0cYbF 10mg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6DG6lw6nD9y1esf1HOX2bsoI3Cni5NL2Hfs1lt6aZFBl3xZAmW CsxFzXlyJaJ4z7notrDZWe3qlaT1JLL9GfVqLmml0Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbHJ8YgcP5HA43AM6u5Jz381fSQciICOofBR8OkiJ7NlDi9F4Kaj6f9QeQtH2PQ9Vm2UstapBCAqhQhMHw7brE= X-Received: by 10.36.145.203 with SMTP id i194mr11460611ite.73.1511441791977; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:56:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.104.16 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:56:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20171110135847.361-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483103B9B461F@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:56:31 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Wu, Hao A" Cc: "Zeng, Star" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "leif.lindholm@linaro.org" , "Kinney, Michael D" , "Gao, Liming" , "Tian, Feng" , "Dong, Eric" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:52:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 23 November 2017 at 12:55, Wu, Hao A wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org] >> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:11 PM >> To: Wu, Hao A >> Cc: Zeng, Star; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; leif.lindholm@linaro.org; Kinney, >> Michael D; Gao, Liming; Tian, Feng; Dong, Eric >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers >> >> On 13 November 2017 at 03:37, Wu, Hao A wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Zeng, Star >> >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:32 AM >> >> To: Wu, Hao A; Ard Biesheuvel; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; >> >> leif.lindholm@linaro.org; Kinney, Michael D >> >> Cc: Gao, Liming; Tian, Feng; Dong, Eric; Zeng, Star >> >> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers >> >> >> >> Hao, >> >> >> >> Could you help do the evaluation on this RFC? >> > >> > Sure, I will take a look on this. >> > >> >> Any feedback? >> > > Hi Ard, > > Sorry for the delayed response. > > I am still collecting feedbacks internally to see if there are additional hook > points needed or other features/services that can be added to the SD/MMC > override protocol. > > I think it would be better for this protocol to be general when it is > introduced, which might avoid changing the protocol frequently later. > > What is your thought on this? Thank you for bringing this up internally. I agree that we should carefully consider potential use cases now and not later. Thanks, Ard.