[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071124202459.4780da17@siona>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:24:59 +0100
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, kernel@...32linux.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] Atmel MCI: Driver for Atmel on-chip MMC controllers
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:48:39 -0800
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 November 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > >
> > > Why is this needed and is it perhaps something that can be moved
> > > to the MMC core?
> >
> > We used to have lots of problems with overruns and underruns and
> > those parameters were useful to limit the transfer rate. Now that
> > the RDPROOF and WRPROOF bits seem to have taken care of these
> > problems for good, I guess we can remove this parameter.
>
> Not all silicon *has* those bits though, right? Like at91rm9200.
Right. The at91rm9200 doesn't have them, and I believe one of the
at91sam926x chips (at91sam9261?) doesn't have them. So if we're going to
merge this driver with at91_mci, I suppose it makes sense to keep this
parameter.
Haavard
-
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