On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:20:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Thierry Reding, > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:36:18PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Dear Thierry Reding, > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Sure, but after you apply the bounce buffer, you can safely > > > > > invalidate the whole cacheline, so align it up and be done with it. > > > > > > > > That's what I proposed to do last time around but it was NAK'ed. > > > > > > By who? > > > > I think it was Simon Glass and Mike Frysinger. They NAK'ed it for very > > valid reason, so I'm not complaining. > > > > > > At the > > > > time I didn't ensure that the buffer was actually big enough, which is > > > > why people didn't like it (data on the stack after the DMA buffer might > > > > be invalidated as well). > > > > > > Correct, thus the bounce buffer. > > > > I don't think we even need the bounce buffer. All that needs to be done > > is guarantee that the buffers passed to the MMC driver are properly > > aligned and sized. > > If you resize the MMC structures and call sizeof() on them to get the size of > the transfer, the MMC won't work correctly anymore.
That's exactly what my first attempt was back then. It was a very naive attempt at getting the MMC core to pass the correct size and as you said it didn't work. Thierry
pgpWAZMBAdMoW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
