On 24 June 2011 10:58, Per Forlin per.for...@linaro.org wrote:
On 23 June 2011 15:37, Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:26:27AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Here are the results.
It looks like this patch is either a no-op or slightly worse. As
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:42:52AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Conclusion:
Working with mmc the relative cost of DSB is almost none. There seems
to be slightly higher number for mmc blocking requests with the DSB
patch compared to not having it.
These figures suggest that dsb is comparitively
+static inline void __dma_sync(void)
+{
+ dsb();
+}
+
/*
* Return whether the given device DMA address mask can be supported
* properly. For example, if your device can only drive the low 24-bits
@@ -378,6 +383,7 @@ static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single(struct device
*dev,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:34:48PM +0300, saeed bishara wrote:
Russell,
I'm curious about the correctness of this patch for systems with
outer cache. shouldn't the dsb be issued before the outer cache
maintenance?
Maybe we should do two passes over SG lists then - one for the inner and
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Cousson, Benoit b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 4:18 PM, Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T wrote:
After runtime conversion to handle clk,
iclk node is not used
However fclk node is still used to get clock rate.
Signed-off-by: Balaji T Kbalaj...@ti.com
---
Hi,
The below are the timings on clean flush.
/*
Size Clean Dirty_cleanFlush Dirty_Flush
T1(ns) T2(ns) T3(ns) T2(ns)
4096 3051730517 30517 30517
8192 30517
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
Now we just need you to submit the remaining parts of
http://dev.laptop.org/~dsd/20110609/sd-pwr-debug6.patch - can you take
care of that? I'm not sure if/how it should be split up or how to
write the commit message.
Sure,
