2014-09-15 23:45 GMT+02:00 Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org:
On 09/04/14 15:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
8
From: Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: Consolidate emmc tuning blocks
The same tuning block array exists in the dw_mmc h.c and sdhci-msm.c
files. Move these
On 09/04/14 15:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
8
From: Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: Consolidate emmc tuning blocks
The same tuning block array exists in the dw_mmc h.c and sdhci-msm.c
files. Move these into mmc.c so that they can be shared across
drivers.
On 4 September 2014 07:06, Jaehoon Chung jh80.ch...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi, Stephen.
On 09/03/2014 10:57 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that
On 09/04/14 03:53, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 4 September 2014 07:06, Jaehoon Chung jh80.ch...@samsung.com wrote:
In dw-mmc.c, tuning_block values are same.
So I think we can move these value into generic header. how about?
Actually, I believe these values comes from the eMMC specification?
On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/04/14 03:53, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 4 September 2014 07:06, Jaehoon Chung jh80.ch...@samsung.com wrote:
In dw-mmc.c, tuning_block values are same.
So I think we can move these value into generic header. how about?
Actually, I believe these
On 09/05, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
On 09/05/2014 06:22 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/04/14 03:53, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 4 September 2014 07:06, Jaehoon Chung jh80.ch...@samsung.com wrote:
In dw-mmc.c, tuning_block values are same.
So I think we can move these value into generic header. how
On 3 September 2014 01:58, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is little-endian.
Change the table to be an
On 09/03/2014 02:58 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is little-endian.
Change the table to be an array of bytes instead of
On 09/03, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 3 September 2014 01:58, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is little-endian.
Change the table to be an array of bytes instead of 32-bit words
so we can use memcmp() without
Hi, Stephen.
On 09/03/2014 10:57 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is little-endian.
Change the table to be an array of
If we're tuning on a big-endian CPU we'll never determine we properly
tuned the device because we compare the data we received from the
controller with a table that assumes the CPU is little-endian.
Change the table to be an array of bytes instead of 32-bit words
so we can use memcmp() without
12 matches
Mail list logo
