From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Hagood <david.hagood@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Benchmarking: POP flash vs. MMC?
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:52:43 -0500
Message-ID: <1238813563.12072.4.camel@surfer>
References: <6541c55b1b4ad133498add734c9eecc8.squirrel@localhost>
	 <f9d2a5e10904031757m5f4fe968mb50b9d58e17501dc@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qy0-f118.google.com ([209.85.221.118]:63967 "EHLO
	mail-qy0-f118.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753155AbZDDCwt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:52:49 -0400
Received: by qyk16 with SMTP id 16so2533302qyk.33
        for <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f9d2a5e10904031757m5f4fe968mb50b9d58e17501dc@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
To: Russ Dill <russ.dill@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

Well, that's not what I would have expected - I would have thought reads on POP would have been faster than that, and cheaper - the SD being the same speed but less CPU is surprising.