On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:32:36 -0700
David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You said you weren't going to update the MMC core to check
> the status bits after every request, and I'm certainly not
> about to change *EVERY MMC/SD REQUEST* to adopt a radically
> different callling convention either!!
>
> Which leaves us needing a solution that actually works, and
> this seems to be the only option: continue to use the current
> calling convention, ->error fields report the failures.
>
I'm more concerned with where you check this, rather than how. If you
want to apply it broadly, the request handling functions in core.c
would seem more sane.
>
> However, that bit looks deeply messy. You'd be splitting
> the OCR (and other SPI four byte responses) into two
> different words, for example!
>
> Or to put it differently, this way the structure that's
> passed up to the core is actually meaningful: one word
> of status, and maybe another word of data. And *never*
> any mixed status/data words that'd need disentangling.
>
> After all, if you really wanted to provide raw protocol
> data to the mmc core, cmd->resp[] would be bytes, not
> 32-bit words in cpu-order.
>
It should, as that's how it's used everywhere. And I'd gladly accept a
patch that fixes this.
>
> I guess we'll have to disagree on this for now. If it
> matters, it can be changed later; but I certainly couldn't
> call mixing data and status as an improvement!!
>
>From my point of view, it's all data. :)
>
> The data block CRC is quite expensive, yes. The CRC7 isn't;
> and in any case, you had pretty much demanded that it always
> be computed (to eliminate the #define for the crc needed in
> the card reset command) ...
>
Ah, didn't think of that distinction. Carry on.
> >
> > At least we agree on error codes. This is precisely the change
> > I have pending in my patch set to remove the MMC_ERR_* mess. :)
>
> I had to pick something. ;)
>
I have committed that to -mm now. Could I bother you with an update of
your patch to remove all MMC_ERR_ stuff? :)
>
> > I need a MAINTAINERS entry aswell.
>
> I was hoping someone would sign up for that, so I don't
> have to stick myself there with "Odd fixes" status...
>
Have you poked someone? I don't even have any SPI hardware, so I'm
definitely the wrong person.
>
> > I'd like to see those REVISIT things attended to before I push
> > the stuff to Linus though.
>
> In this driver? They're mostly performance tuning issues, which
> are normally best left till later:
>
> - dma_map_single() operations could theoretically fail.
> Not that it'd be likely on hardware that uses this driver;
> but that's simple error path cleanup.
>
This is the one I'm mostly concerned with. Dangling error paths give me
the willies.
> More significant are the two FIXMEs related to card reset.
> One will require someone with relevant hardware (Jan?),
> the other still needs investigation.
>
Ok.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
