On 11/04/2011 12:18 AM, Will Newton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Nov 03 2011, Shashidhar Hiremath wrote: >>> Hi Chris, >>> Can this patch be accepted by criteria that its an additional >>> feature supported by the hardware and hence good to have the support >>> in the driver.Also note the patch has been tested. >> >> I think Will and James should make the call on that. >> >> My own opinion is that it's not usually a good idea to merge code that >> increases complexity for no performance gain; if the feature is actually >> important, someone should find a way to finish it and measure a >> performance gain (the gain can be in any of bandwidth, memory, or >> lower CPU utilization) with it, to prove that the change is worthwhile. > > I'm inclined to agree. I don't want to feel like I am blocking > inclusion of anyone's hard work, but unless there is a clear advantage > for one option over the other I can't see a good reason for merging > it. At present it adds a question to the Kconfig that is pretty much > impossible for the user to answer (do I turn this feature on or off? > what is the advantage of choosing each option?). Maybe, i think we didn't achieve the any advantage with this patch. But i understood that shashidhar's hardware is only supported dual buffer descriptor. So he want to merge this patch. If that is not reason, i also think that didn't need to merge. I didn't see that improve the performance...memory/CPU utilization.. Regards, Jaehoon Chung > -- > 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 > -- 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
