On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +0100, Per Forlin wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:02:02PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> /*
>> >> + * Validate mmc prerequisites
>> >> + */
>> >> +static int mmci_validate_data(struct mmci_host *host,
>> >> + struct mmc_data *data)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (!data)
>> >> + return 0;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!host->variant->non_power_of_2_blksize &&
>> >> + !is_power_of_2(data->blksz)) {
>> >> + dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
>> >> + "unsupported block size (%d bytes)\n", data->blksz);
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + if (data->sg->offset & 3) {
>> >> + dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
>> >> + "unsupported alginment (0x%x)\n", data->sg->offset);
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > Why? What's the reasoning behind this suddenly introduced restriction?
>> > readsl()/writesl() copes just fine with non-aligned pointers. It may be
>> > that your DMA engine can not, but that's no business interfering with
>> > non-DMA transfers, and no reason to fail such transfers.
>> >
>> > If your DMA engine can't do that then its your DMA engine code which
>> > should refuse to prepare the transfer.
>> >
>> > Yes, that means problems with the way things are ordered - or it needs a
>> > proper API where DMA engine can export these kinds of properties.
>> The alignment constraint is related to PIO, sg_miter and that FIFO
>> access must be done with 4 bytes.
>
> Total claptrap. No it isn't.
>
> - sg_miter just deals with bytes, and number of bytes transferred; there
> is no word assumptions in that code. Indeed many ATA disks transfer
> by half-word accesses so such a restriction would be insane.
>
> - the FIFO access itself needs to be 32-bit words, so readsl or writesl
> (or their io* equivalents must be used).
>
> - but - and this is the killer item to your argument as I said above -
> readsl and writesl _can_ take misaligned pointers and cope with them
> fine.
>
> The actual alignment of the buffer address is totally irrelevant here.
>
> What isn't irrelevant is the _number_ of bytes to be transferred, but
> that's something totally different and completely unrelated from
> data->sg->offset.
Let's try again :)
Keep in mind that the mmc -block layer is aligned so from that aspect
everything is fine.
SDIO may have any length or alignment but sg-len is always 1.
There is just one sg-element and one continues buffer.
sg-miter splits the continues buffer in chunks that may not be aligned
with 4 byte size. It depends on the start address alignment of the
buffer.
Is it more clear now?
BR
Per
--
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
