Dear Troy Kisky, > On 9/22/2013 5:02 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Dear Troy Kisky, > > > >> On 9/20/2013 3:58 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> Dear Troy Kisky, > >>> > >>>> Only perform one copy, either in the bounce > >>>> routine for IN transfers, or the debounce > >>>> rtn for OUT transfer. > >>>> > >>>> On out transfers, only copy the number > >>>> of bytes received from the bounce buffer > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> v4: no change > >>> > >>> Just a question here. Are you sure we never Send AND Reserve the data > >>> in one turn? Because that would need two copyings. > >>> > >> ??? s/Reserve/Receive/ > >> > >> As far as I'm aware, a single buffer is only ever used to capture or > >> provide data not both. > >> But, if 2 transfers were queued, an OUT and then an IN using the same > > Actually, I should have said "an IN (tx to the host controller) and then > an OUT(rx from the host controller)" > > >> buffer, if it worked before > >> this patch, it should work after as well. > > > > How come? Before, it was doing flush before and inval after the transfer, > > right ? > > The 1st "IN" transfer (tx to the host), will [copy]/flush on mv_bounce > and [free]/nothing on mv_debounce. > The 2nd "OUT" transfer (rx from the host) will flush on mv_bounce and > invalidate/[copy/free] on mv_debounce. > > > btw what does this part of the patch do/mean ? Why is it there? > > > > @@ -387,10 +383,9 @@ static void handle_ep_complete(struct mv_ep *ep) > > > > num, in ? "in" : "out", item->info, item->page0); > > > > len = (item->info >> 16) & 0x7fff; > > > > - > > - mv_debounce(ep); > > - > > > > ep->req.length -= len; > > > > + mv_debounce(ep, in); > > + > > That implements the "On out transfers, only copy the number of bytes > received from the bounce buffer" > portion of the commit message.
OK, thanks. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
