> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/buffer.c b/drivers/usb/core/buffer.c > > index 2c69654..150d4b8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/buffer.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/buffer.c > > @@ -115,6 +115,11 @@ void *hcd_buffer_alloc( > > return kmalloc(size, mem_flags); > > } > > > > + /* we won't use internal SRAM as data payload, we can't get > > + any benefits from it */ > > + if (hcd->has_sram && hcd->sram_no_payload) > > + return dma_alloc_coherent(NULL, size, dma, > > mem_flags); > > Why not pass the device you are allocing the memory from here? You > know what it is, right? Yes - fixed. > And this seems a bit odd, why is this the first controller that needs > this type of allocation scheme? Because existing controllers are either PIO or host DMA entirely. This one has an SRAM cache of its own which has power and bus traffic benefits. Alan -- 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
