From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] mmc: sdhci: Add 64-bit ADMA support Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:15:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2048776.ZjHxKvTX0Z@wuerfel> References: <1413883585-16299-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <7275405.tTXMrp5n17@wuerfel> <54521813.9050308@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:55607 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759059AbaJ3MPJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:15:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <54521813.9050308@intel.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Ulf Hansson , Chris Ball , linux-mmc On Thursday 30 October 2014 12:50:59 Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 30/10/14 12:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > You also said that the flag is defined to mean that 64-bit DMA > > is working and that you want to show the warning when the hardware > > and the firmware disagree about this. If you have an (at least) > > 50% chance that the hardware is lying, you really shouldn't believe > > it. > > Just because there are two options does not mean they are each equally > likely. > Yes, that's why I said "at least". Presumably when the hardware and firmware disagree about something, it's because the firmware developer found a problem with the hardware and wants to work around that. Arnd