[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2PTrDEKbvGRDcq6dhDaALbEQbUwO-TpjricgJPREFK=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:47:11 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit@...stem.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
joancarles <joancarles@...ngenieria.es>,
Eric Bénard <eric@...rea.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mmc: sdhci-esdhc: Add SDHCI_QUIRK_32BIT_DMA_ADDR
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit@...stem.com> wrote:
> The eSDHC can only DMA from 32-bit-aligned addresses.
>
> This fixes the following test cases of mmc_test:
> 11: Badly aligned write
> 12: Badly aligned read
> 13: Badly aligned multi-block write
> 14: Badly aligned multi-block read
>
> Signed-off-by: Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit@...stem.com>
Is this the right description? I thought that SDHCI_QUIRK_32BIT_DMA_ADDR
was for devices that cannot address high memory above 0xffffffff, rather than
requiring a specific alignment.
If this is indeed an address range problem rather than an alignment problem,
are you sure it is the SD controller that is wrong here, rather than having a
64-bit DMA capable SDHCI connected to a 32-bit parent bus? In the
latter case, the dma-ranges property in the parent bus should limit
the addressing, not the device.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists