From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:26:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1234283205.3119.64.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090210160451.GD3534@tuxdriver.com>
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:04 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 04:00:28PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:30 +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
> > >>> From: Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@analog.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> Introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option for those SD/SDIO host
> > >>> which only support transferring block with size of power-of-2
> > >>
> > >> Is the point here to avoid copying in the controller code? As with the
> > >> other patches on libertas-dev, I really dislike adding code to *every
> > >> SDIO driver* just because the host has certain restrictions. I'd much
> > >> rather that the host/controller code became aware of it's own
> > >> restrictions, and exposed those generically to drivers above it.
> > >> Without a KConfig option.
> > >>
> > >> Seriously. The host knows what it needs. The code to handle that
> > >> should go in the host.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I agree here.
> > >
> > >> How about adding a method like "sdio_align_size" that takes the
> > >> controller's constraints into account? That seems a lot cleaner than
> > >> adding #define/KConfig junk to every SDIO driver in the kernel. One
> > >> less codepath to test, makes your life and all our lives easier.
> > >>
> > >
> > > So we plan to add method ".sdio_align_size" to SDIO stack.
> > > And Blackfin host driver will implement this method while others will
> > > implement this as a dummy function.
> > >
> >
> > sdio_align_size is already in SDIO stack, so we just need to add our
> > constraints to this function.
>
> I'm reading this as "this patch is unnecessary or will be replaced
> by something better", so I'm dropping it. If I misread that, feel
> free to repost...thanks!
Yeah, some patches got posted to the MMC lists that do what this patch
would do, but do it in a somewhat better manner.
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-10 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-05 7:30 [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option Bryan Wu
2009-02-05 15:03 ` Dan Williams
2009-02-06 7:47 ` Bryan Wu
2009-02-06 8:00 ` Bryan Wu
2009-02-10 16:04 ` John W. Linville
2009-02-10 16:26 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2009-02-11 3:32 ` Bryan Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1234283205.3119.64.camel@localhost \
--to=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=cliff.cai@analog.com \
--cc=cooloney@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.