On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:02:34 +0800 David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 21 June 2009, Alek Du wrote: > > > > The ehci_qh structure merged hw and sw together which is not good: > > 2. If HCD has local SRAM, the sw part will consume it too, and it won't > > bring any benefit. > > Same point can be made for having the 64-bit pointer fields. > Will you be making those more optional in later patches? David, I missed point here, can you elaborate more here? > > > > 3. For non-x86 system, the entire ehci_qh is uncachable, actually we > > only need the hw part to be uncacheable. Split them will give the sw > > part cacheable feature. > > Actually not *all* x86 systems are DMA-incoherent. Just most > of them. But I'll be glad to see this, since more ARMs are > incorporating EHCI hardware on their on-chip non-PCI busses. > > > In principle I don't object. But ... this email was over 40K, > which exceeds my current review time limit for this lowlevel > type of change. > > Could you split this into smaller and more reviewable chunks? > > An example might be adding qh->hw pointing to QH, and then > having lots of purely cosmetic changes to use that syntax > where it's appropriate. Then qh->sw, likewise. And later > patches could make the more substantive changes, in many > fewer locations that are a lot easier to review. Ok, will try and see if I can create a smaller patch here. Alek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
