From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [RFC] mmc: sdhci: work around broken dma boundary behavior Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 06:56:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20110412045634.GA25956@pengutronix.de> References: <20110314172129.GA20654@pengutronix.de> <1301388814-10931-1-git-send-email-mmvinni@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o" Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:42529 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751078Ab1DLE4h (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:56:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Ball Cc: Mikko Vinni , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > In my opinion this is more risky than the original patch because this > > will affect the behavior on all controllers that use sdhci, and not > > just on those ones that don't update SDHCI_DMA_ADDRESS themselves. > > Comments welcome! >=20 > Any thoughts on which of the two approaches you prefer? Thanks for the ping. I prefer the latter approach but it should be given en= ough time testing in -next. --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2j24IACgkQD27XaX1/VRvj7wCeI4veo7R3U1pOXaL8ZPExYQCa DbgAoJfpCXwp2hZdjfyYlNU8hMKfv/jA =CDH8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--