On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 20:13 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > [ potential "LUT" optimization, implementation details ] > > AFAICT the big issue with the LUTs in this controller is that they are > expensive to reprogram so things are going to work better if there is a > small set of known operations that will happen repeatedly. Otherwise > walking the transfer list at runtime isn't too hard. I think you can drop the word "known" there. With decent management of the LUT as a kind of LRU cache of recent operations, surely you'll quickly get into a situation where the operations you're actually *doing* on the flash are all already in the LUT and you're never actually *having* to reprogram it? You don't need to have them set up in advance. Although once you have it correctly doing the LUT management at runtime, sticking some expected operations into the LUT at startup in *anticipation* can't hurt. But let's not talk about that yet. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
