Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753287AbYAWMaf (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:30:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751809AbYAWMa2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:30:28 -0500 Received: from mail.hevs.ch ([153.109.23.15]:43617 "EHLO mail.hevs.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605AbYAWMa1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:30:27 -0500 From: Marc Pignat Organization: HEVs To: Haavard Skinnemoen Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] atmel_serial: Add DMA support Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:30:32 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Andrew Victor , kernel@avr32linux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Remy Bohmer , Chip Coldwell References: <1201013444-30370-1-git-send-email-hskinnemoen@atmel.com> <200801221752.43830.marc.pignat@hevs.ch> <20080123125300.5d8d7006@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080123125300.5d8d7006@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801231330.32777.marc.pignat@hevs.ch> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2193 Lines: 58 Hi! On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:43 +0100 > Marc Pignat wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I removed linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk from cc, it is a > > subscriber-only list. > > Right. Does that mean I shouldn't Cc it on patches? extract from the linux-arm-kernel 'Mailing List Etiquette': ? ? ? ? ? ? ?10. Cross-posting between linux-arm* lists and other lists. [[40]rmk] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Please do not do this. Subscribers on other lists may not be ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? subscribed to the linux-arm lists, so when they try to reply to ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? such a message, they will receive a bounce. This is deemed by ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? others to be rude behaviour on the part of the person who ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? originally cross-posted. > > > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > From: Chip Coldwell > > ... > > > @@ -47,6 +50,11 @@ > > > > > > #include "atmel_serial.h" > > > > > > +#define SUPPORT_PDC > > > +#define PDC_BUFFER_SIZE (L1_CACHE_BYTES << 3) > > > +#warning "Revisit" > > why add this warning? > > Dunno. I suppose the PDC_BUFFER_SIZE and/or PDC_RX_TIMEOUT definitions > needs to be revisited? Chip? I just think there is no need to warn, even if definitions are sub-optimal. > > I don't really understand why the buffer size depends on the cache line > size either. Why don't we just set it to something nice and large, like > 512 (actually 1024 since there are two buffers), and be done with it? Probably for dma safety/performance, The PDC buffer start should be aligned to cache line, and the size be a multiple of cache line size. > > And while we're at it, might as well move the SUPPORT_PDC definition > into Kconfig where it belongs... For me there is no need to disbable pdc support once working. PDC can be enabled/disabled in the board setup code. -> simply remove this definition. Regards Marc -- 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/