Re: [PATCH 02/11] sdhci: Add support for bus-specific IO memory accessors

Pierre Ossman
2009-03-08T14:08:37Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1588 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:46:58 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 04:57:57PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> > We can most likely do some micro-optimisation do make the compare part
> > cheaper, but the point was to avoid a function call for all the
> > properly implemented controllers out there. We could have a flag so
> > that it only has to check host->flags, which will most likely be in the
> > cache anyway.
> >
> > Overhead for eSDHC is not a concern in my book, what is interesting is
> > how much this change slows things down for other controllers.
>
> OK, I see. Will the patch down below make you a little bit more happy
> wrt normal controllers? Two #ifdefs, but then there is absolutely
> zero overhead for the fully compliant SDHCI controllers.
>

I can't say this makes me happy either, but I think it's acceptable for
now so that we can move forward. I'd like a common code path for this
thing, but I think I'm going to have to put a bit more time into it
myself than I currently have available.

> (So far it's just on top of this series, but I can incorporate it
> into the "sdhci: Add support for bus-specific IO memory accessors"
> patch, if you like).
>

Please do. Have one patch add some code and another remove it in the
same set is just silly. :)

Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman

WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
encryption.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]