Dear Tom Rini, > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Ilya Yanok, > > > >> Hi Marek, > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > >> > >> > index 04300be..5199560 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > >> > @@ -34,7 +34,10 @@ struct ehci_hccr *hccr; /* R/O registers, not > >> > need for volatile */ > >> > > >> > volatile struct ehci_hcor *hcor; > >> > > >> > static uint16_t portreset; > >> > > >> > -static struct QH qh_list __attribute__((aligned(32))); > >> > +DEFINE_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(struct QH, qh_list, 1); > >> > >> This will align on ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, not USB_DMA_MINALIGN. In case of > >> ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN < 32 we will loose the 32-byte alignment required by > >> USB spec. > > > > That's true -- maybe we should create ALLOC_ALIGN_BUFFER() and > > ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER() to be a special case of it ? > > Lets think. USB says "32byte min". Do we have other buses today that > apply similar constraints? If so, we should probably go about > abstracting into a __ALIGN_FOO(size, what) and do a general one and a > USB one that does 32 or cachline. If it's just USB that might be > overkill however...
Let's do this, we dunno what craziness can befall us in the future. And having the macro handy won't hurt anyway. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
