On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:40:22AM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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? Yeah, assuming it's not too annoying to identify the repeated patterns and doesn't blow up horribly just caching should work fine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
