Re: [PATCH 07/13] sdhci: Add support for hosts with strict 32 bit addressing

From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus@drzeus.cx>
To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com
Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Liu Dave <DaveLiu@freescale.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	sdhci-devel@list.drzeus.cx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] sdhci: Add support for hosts with strict 32 bit addressing
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 15:17:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090308151710.637fe280@mjolnir.ossman.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090304174845.GC7477@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:48:45 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com> wrote:

> But I see the point of confusion... Instead of teaching
> "SDHCI core" to work with 32 bits hosts, we'd better handle this
> in the eSDHC part, in the accessors.
> 
> This is relatively trivial and should not cause much overhead
> (at least when using DMA), just a small state machine with
> the xfer mode register shadowed in software (plus, notice that
> this also handles BLOCK_SIZE, as I promised in another email):
> 

Me like. Keeps my life a lot saner. :)

Just be aware that there is a remote risk of breakage as people hacking
on sdhci-core won't be aware of esdhc's, let's call it unique,
behaviour. Some testing now and then on your part would be prudent. :)

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 --]