PATCH: Config option to pad SDIO sizes

[Dan Williams]

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:41 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:37 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:22 +0200, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Attached is a patch agains 2.6.25 that adds a CONFIG_LIBERTAS_SDIO_PAD_SIZE
> > > option to control padding of sdio packet sizes to work around buggy SDIO 
> > > controllers - they are known to exist.. and not always possible to fix in
> > > the
> > > SDIO driver it seems.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the patch could be trimmed a little - any sane compiler would
> > > make it a noop if the PAD_SIZE is 0.
> > 
> > Pending a look from Pierre, but I think this would probably _also_ be
> > better as a module parameter rather than a CONFIG option.  Since the
> > addition is done anyway, there shouldn't be a real speed hit.  The
> > problem is that in the general world, we have no idea what hardware
> > you'll be running this on, and it's better to have one kernel that can
> > run on lots of hardware rather than having to flip config options and
> > recompile.  I don't think a module parameter would be an issue in
> > embedded-land either, right?
> > 
> > Pierre, is there a better way to fix the crappy SDIO host controller
> > thing, or is padding in libertas_sdio what we're stuck with?
> 
> Bonus points if we could change the pad size at runtime by doing
> something like:
> 
> echo 0x03 > /sys/module/libertas_sdio/parameters/lbs_sdio_padsize

Actually that parameter name is stupid since it's already the SDIO
driver.  Just "padsize" would be the best name IMHO.


echo 0x03 > /sys/module/libertas_sdio/parameters/padsize

Dan

> since RO module parameters are almost as bad as config options.  Not
> sure how that plays with locking internally though.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libertas-dev mailing list
> libertas-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libertas-dev