On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 20:46:58 +0300 Anton Vorontsov 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.