lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:43:46 -0400 From: Mark Lord <liml@....ca> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>, bzolnier@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Subject: Re: Compact Flash performance... Jeff Garzik wrote: > Mark Lord wrote: >> Some cards may perform better when their "memory" interface is used >> instead of the "I/O" interface, or vice-versa. I'm not sure which >> of the two methods was selected by libata (probably the "memory" >> interface). > > I am very CF-ignorant. How does libata select a memory or I/O interface > on a CF device? Right. Usually we cannot select them, as it's the wires between the ATA chipset (motherboard) and the CFCARD that determine this. So I suppose this means that most implementations are using the I/O access method, except for some embedded systems where the CFCARD is wired to the host bus without a separate "controller" chip in between. Cheers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists