[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160508194112.GL4775@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:41:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
Julian Margetson <runaway@...dw.ms>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/23] ata: sata_dwc_460ex: set dma_boundary to 0x1fff
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:03:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c b/drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c
> index 7f95389..aee8873 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c
> @@ -1151,7 +1151,13 @@ static struct scsi_host_template sata_dwc_sht = {
> */
> .sg_tablesize = LIBATA_MAX_PRD,
> /* .can_queue = ATA_MAX_QUEUE, */
> - .dma_boundary = ATA_DMA_BOUNDARY,
> + /*
> + * Make sure a LLI block is not created that will span 8K max FIS
> + * boundary. If the block spans such a FIS boundary, there is a chance
> + * that a DMA burst will cross that boundary -- this results in an
> + * error in the host controller.
> + */
> + .dma_boundary = 0x1fff /* ATA_DMA_BOUNDARY */,
The host controller can't cross 8k boundary? Is this for real?
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists