| Message ID | 20220404172322.32578-3-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Under Review |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mmc: renesas: Trivial fixes | expand |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:21 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote: > > > > - /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes alignment */ > > + /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes aligned */ > > Well, as we are here now, I think this can be further improved. > "The internal DMAC supports 128-bytes aligned buffers only", does this sound good? Cheers, Prabhakar
> > > - /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes alignment */ > > > + /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes aligned */ > > > > Well, as we are here now, I think this can be further improved. > > > "The internal DMAC supports 128-bytes aligned buffers only", does this > sound good? I'd think it should be "128 byte aligned"? But I can't explain why, just a gut feeling. Otherwise good!
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:45 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote: > > > > > > - /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes alignment */ > > > > + /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes aligned */ > > > > > > Well, as we are here now, I think this can be further improved. > > > > > "The internal DMAC supports 128-bytes aligned buffers only", does this > > sound good? > > I'd think it should be "128 byte aligned"? But I can't explain why, just > a gut feeling. > Fine by me. Let me know your thoughts on patch 1/2, I'll send a v2 with updated comment. Cheers, Prabhakar
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:51 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote: > > > > - /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes alignment */ > > > > + /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes aligned */ > > > > > > Well, as we are here now, I think this can be further improved. > > > > > "The internal DMAC supports 128-bytes aligned buffers only", does this > > sound good? > > I'd think it should be "128 byte aligned"? But I can't explain why, just > a gut feeling. I'd say "128-byte aligned". But let the native speakers^Wwriters decide ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac.c b/drivers/mmc/host/renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac.c index 1685df00863b..b468368a4539 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac.c @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_dataend_dma(struct tmio_mmc_host *host) { } /* - * renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_map() will be called with two difference + * renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_map() will be called with two different * sg pointers in two mmc_data by .pre_req(), but tmio host can have a single * sg_ptr only. So, renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_{un}map() should use a sg * pointer in a mmc_data instead of host->sg_ptr. @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_map(struct tmio_mmc_host *host, data->host_cookie = cookie; - /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes alignment */ + /* This DMAC cannot handle if buffer is not 128-bytes aligned */ if (!IS_ALIGNED(sg_dma_address(data->sg), 128)) { renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac_unmap(host, data, cookie); return false;
Fix typo's, * difference -> different * alignment -> aligned Reported-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> --- drivers/mmc/host/renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)