From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Kandagatla Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] mmc: mmci: Add Qcom specific pio_read function. Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 18:10:28 +0100 Message-ID: <53837584.2010006@linaro.org> References: <1400849362-7007-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1400849589-7626-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:64561 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392AbaEZRKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2014 13:10:33 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id bs8so316127wib.6 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Russell King , linux-mmc , Chris Ball , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij On 26/05/14 15:34, Ulf Hansson wrote: > This is hot path. > > As I suggested for the readl and writel wrapper functions, I think it > would be better to use a function pointer in the struct mmci host, > which you set up in the probe phase. That means the variant data don't > need to be checked each an every time this function gets invoked. > >> >+ >> > if (status & MCI_TXACTIVE) >> > len = mmci_pio_write(host, buffer, remain, status); > So no changes needed for pio_write at this point? Or those will come later? > Yes, that sounds like more sensible approach to me. I will do this change in next version. Thanks, srini >> > >> >--