Re: Compact Flash performance...

Mark Lord wrote:

Some cards may perform better when their "memory" interface is used
instead of the "I/O" interface, or vice-versa.  I'm not sure which

of the two methods was selected by libata (probably the "memory" interface).

I am very CF-ignorant. How does libata select a memory or I/O interface on a CF device?

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Compact Flash performance...
    • From: "Daniel J Blueman" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: "Daniel J Blueman" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: "Daniel J Blueman" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: "Daniel J Blueman" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Compact Flash performance...
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Compact Flash performance...
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] use mutex instead of semaphore in tty_io.c
• Previous by thread: Re: Compact Flash performance...
• Next by thread: Re: Compact Flash performance...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]