From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: baruch@tkos.co.il (Baruch Siach) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:12:01 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] mtd: mxc_nand: fix truncate of unaligned oob copying In-Reply-To: <20150513070140.GH28888@pengutronix.de> References: <20150508072432.GJ12671@pengutronix.de> <20150513051202.GI2558@tarshish> <20150513063903.GC28888@pengutronix.de> <20150513064404.GM2558@tarshish> <20150513064734.GF28888@pengutronix.de> <20150513065922.GN2558@tarshish> <20150513070140.GH28888@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20150513071201.GO2558@tarshish> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Uwe, On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:01:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:59:22AM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:47:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:44:04AM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > > > I thought we could get rid of the memcpy32 variants. Where do we need > > > > > memcpy32_* where memcpy16 wouldn't work? > > > > > > > > memcpy16 should work, but would take twice as much IO/memory accesses. That > > > > would definitely affect performance, as this is the flash data read/write hot > > > > path. I didn't test, though. > > > > > > > > Are you sure we want to do that? > > > no, I'm not sure. But I think it's worth to test how much performance > > > degrades. > > > > That will have to wait a few weeks as I don't have the hardware handy at the > > moment. > In the hope the test will not be forgotten I consider it ok to take this > series without the test (with keeping the memcpy32 that is). Agreed. I'll respin this series with the ecc_8bit_layout name change as you suggested. May I have your Reviewed-by/Acked-by for the patches you are not the author of? baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -