Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932425AbXHFKb4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:31:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762658AbXHFKbr (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:31:47 -0400 Received: from cluster-g.mailcontrol.com ([85.115.41.190]:41490 "EHLO cluster-g.mailcontrol.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762717AbXHFKbq (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:31:46 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 920 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:31:46 EDT Message-ID: <46B6F877.7060504@csr.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:31:19 +0100 From: David Vrabel User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Ossman CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sdio: enhance IO_RW_EXTENDED support References: <11858961933491-git-send-email-david.vrabel@csr.com> <20070804152304.65ed8f1b@poseidon.drzeus.cx> In-Reply-To: <20070804152304.65ed8f1b@poseidon.drzeus.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2007 10:31:20.0449 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDD58F10:01C7D814] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1891 Lines: 48 Pierre Ossman wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:36:30 +0100 > David Vrabel wrote: > >> These three patches enhance the support for the SDIO IO_RW_EXTENDED >> command. The block size of functions is managed and the I/O ops >> (sdio_readsb() etc) are extended to handle arbitrary lengths of data >> (by using multiple commands). >> >> I've not yet had a chance to test this stuff as I don't (yet) have >> the time to write a Bluetooth Type-A driver so these are posted as an >> example of the sort of API I'd expect. >> > > Thanks. These are some nice improvements. I do have one suggestion > though: > > Could we design it so that sdio_io_rw_ext_helper() sets the block size > itself? That way most drivers wouldn't have to care about that detail > and the core would be free to choose optimal values. I would expect the block size to be set once per card, and never be changed and thus it's not logically a per-transfer operation. We certainly wouldn't want to change the block size willy-nilly as it's an expensive operation. The patch I've presented does put the selection of the block size in the core (bar one thing which I agree should be removed). > I suspect that some transactions might require a certain block size. > But we could satisfy that by stating that any transfer small enough to > fit into one block will not be split up. I consider it unlikely that any card would want to do anything other than always use the largest possible block size. David -- David Vrabel, Software Engineer, Drivers group Tel: +44 (0)1223 692562 CSR plc, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, CB4 0WZ . - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/