Hi Wolfram-san, > From: Wolfram Sang, Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 6:57 AM > > Hi Shimoda-san, > > > > > > + if (host->pdev->dev.iommu_group && > > > > > > > > I wonder if I am too cautious, but maybe we should have another > > > > condition here to be checked first, namely "host->mmc->max_segs < 512"? > > > > > > I got it. I'll fix it on v3 patch. > > > > I'm afraid but I misunderstood this condition is > > "host->pdata->max_segs", not "host->mmc->max_segs", to avoid small > > max_segs value than pdata->max_segs? > > You are right. I was in deed thinking mmc->max_segs because it will be > set at probe time, so it would work with values > 512. But I missed the > case you described, I am sorry. But using pdata->max_segs should work. Thank you for the reply. I got it! > > (No one has such max_segs value at the moment though.) > > Yes. I want to be future-proof here. Just to avoid that the value might > be "magically" decreased if the value might be bigger than 512. It would > be hard to find then because it is kinda deep in the driver. I got it. > Two more remarks: > > * We should probably use a define for the magic value 512. I think so. I also would like to use a define for a magic value 32. > * Maybe you could add a comment to the init_card function describing why > we can increase max_segs in that case. Basically, a short summary of > your patch description. It's a good idea! I'll add such a short summary. > Does this make sense to you? Yes. Thank you for your comments. I'll make v3 patch later. Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda > Kind regards, > > Wolfram
