On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
> <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -456,11 +458,20 @@ static struct resource sdhi0_cn7_resources[] = {
> > },
> > };
> >
> > +static struct sh_mobile_sdhi_info sh7724_sdhi0_data = {
> > + .dma_slave_tx = SHDMA_SLAVE_SDHI0_TX,
> > + .dma_slave_rx = SHDMA_SLAVE_SDHI0_RX,
> > + .tmio_flags = TMIO_IMMEDIATE_RX_COMPLETE,
> > +};
> > +
> > static struct platform_device sdhi0_cn7_device = {
> > .name = "sh_mobile_sdhi",
> > .id = 0,
> > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(sdhi0_cn7_resources),
> > .resource = sdhi0_cn7_resources,
> > + .dev = {
> > + .platform_data = &sh7724_sdhi0_data,
> > + },
> > .archdata = {
> > .hwblk_id = HWBLK_SDHI0,
> > },
> > @@ -479,11 +490,19 @@ static struct resource sdhi1_cn8_resources[] = {
> > },
> > };
> >
> > +static struct sh_mobile_sdhi_info sh7724_sdhi1_data = {
> > + .dma_slave_tx = SHDMA_SLAVE_SDHI1_TX,
> > + .dma_slave_rx = SHDMA_SLAVE_SDHI1_RX,
>
> And these two are the opposite of Ecovec even though both are sh7724? Hm..
Right, that's wrong. I mean, yes, they did behave differently in my tests.
On both boards I only could test one slot, so, I just presume the other
one should behave equally. So, this flag should be present on SE and not
on ecovec. Will fix in the next revision, thanks.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
