Dear Ulf,
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:31:59 +0200
Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 3 June 2015 at 10:34, David Jander wrote:
> > In the (not so unlikely) case that the mmc controller timeout budget is
> > enough for exactly one erase-group, the simplification of allowing one
> > sector has an enormous perfor
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:31:59 +0200
Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 3 June 2015 at 10:34, David Jander wrote:
> > In the (not so unlikely) case that the mmc controller timeout budget is
> > enough for exactly one erase-group, the simplification of allowing one
> > sector has an enormous performance penalt
On 3 June 2015 at 10:34, David Jander wrote:
> In the (not so unlikely) case that the mmc controller timeout budget is
> enough for exactly one erase-group, the simplification of allowing one
> sector has an enormous performance penalty. We optimize this special case
> by introducing a flag that p
In the (not so unlikely) case that the mmc controller timeout budget is
enough for exactly one erase-group, the simplification of allowing one
sector has an enormous performance penalty. We optimize this special case
by introducing a flag that prohibits erase-group boundary crossing, so
that we can
