From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:26:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1234283205.3119.64.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090210160451.GD3534@tuxdriver.com>
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:04 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 04:00:28PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:30 +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
> > >>> From: Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@analog.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> Introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option for those SD/SDIO host
> > >>> which only support transferring block with size of power-of-2
> > >>
> > >> Is the point here to avoid copying in the controller code? As with the
> > >> other patches on libertas-dev, I really dislike adding code to *every
> > >> SDIO driver* just because the host has certain restrictions. I'd much
> > >> rather that the host/controller code became aware of it's own
> > >> restrictions, and exposed those generically to drivers above it.
> > >> Without a KConfig option.
> > >>
> > >> Seriously. The host knows what it needs. The code to handle that
> > >> should go in the host.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I agree here.
> > >
> > >> How about adding a method like "sdio_align_size" that takes the
> > >> controller's constraints into account? That seems a lot cleaner than
> > >> adding #define/KConfig junk to every SDIO driver in the kernel. One
> > >> less codepath to test, makes your life and all our lives easier.
> > >>
> > >
> > > So we plan to add method ".sdio_align_size" to SDIO stack.
> > > And Blackfin host driver will implement this method while others will
> > > implement this as a dummy function.
> > >
> >
> > sdio_align_size is already in SDIO stack, so we just need to add our
> > constraints to this function.
>
> I'm reading this as "this patch is unnecessary or will be replaced
> by something better", so I'm dropping it. If I misread that, feel
> free to repost...thanks!
Yeah, some patches got posted to the MMC lists that do what this patch
would do, but do it in a somewhat better manner.
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-10 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-05 7:30 [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option Bryan Wu
2009-02-05 15:03 ` Dan Williams
2009-02-06 7:47 ` Bryan Wu
2009-02-06 8:00 ` Bryan Wu
2009-02-10 16:04 ` John W. Linville
2009-02-10 16:26 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2009-02-11 3:32 ` Bryan Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1234283205.3119.64.camel@localhost \
--to=dcbw@redhat.com \
--cc=cliff.cai@analog.com \
--cc=cooloney@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).