From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 19:00:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5163106568B for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A5E8FC14 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3IJ0Odc079648 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p3IJ0OWs079642; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 GMT Message-Id: <201104181900.p3IJ0OWs079642@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org From: Ian Lepore Cc: Subject: Re: arm/155214: [patch] MMC/SD IO slow on Atmel ARM with modern large SD cards X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ian Lepore List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:00:24 -0000 The following reply was made to PR arm/155214; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ian Lepore To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: arm/155214: [patch] MMC/SD IO slow on Atmel ARM with modern large SD cards Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:45:28 -0600 I have an updated patch for this which includes better error handling, and better read performance (mainly by splitting large IO requests into two DMA operations and doing the byte-swapping for the first half while the second half is still on the wire from the card). It also has more comments about what works and what doesn't (ex: 30mhz 4-bit transfers when USB Host mode is also enabled). I don't see any straightforward way on the PR page to nuke the original patch and supply a replacement. What's the best way to handle that? -- Ian