> -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:02 AM > To: Andrew Morton > Cc: Kyungmin Park; Madhusudhan Chikkature; LKML; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [PATCH V2 4/4] omap_hsmmc: Add erase capability > > From 101ce0365d6ce1abc8518f4776ea723038eeb5ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:33:13 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH 4/4] omap_hsmmc: Add erase capability > > Disable the data (busy) timeout for erases and set the > MMC_CAP_ERASE capability. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > index b032828..5cbbe09 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > #include <linux/clk.h> > #include <linux/mmc/host.h> > #include <linux/mmc/core.h> > +#include <linux/mmc/mmc.h> > #include <linux/io.h> > #include <linux/semaphore.h> > #include <linux/gpio.h> > @@ -78,6 +79,7 @@ > #define INT_EN_MASK 0x307F0033 > #define BWR_ENABLE (1 << 4) > #define BRR_ENABLE (1 << 5) > +#define DTO_ENABLE (1 << 20) > #define INIT_STREAM (1 << 1) > #define DP_SELECT (1 << 21) > #define DDIR (1 << 4) > @@ -523,7 +525,8 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_stop_clock(struct > omap_hsmmc_host *host) > dev_dbg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "MMC Clock is not stoped\n"); > } > > -static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host) > +static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host, > + struct mmc_command *cmd) > { > unsigned int irq_mask; > > @@ -532,6 +535,10 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct > omap_hsmmc_host *host) > else > irq_mask = INT_EN_MASK; > > + /* Disable timeout for erases */ > + if (cmd->opcode == MMC_ERASE) > + irq_mask &= ~DTO_ENABLE; > + I wonder is it safe to setup something based on the opcode? When I first posted the driver I remember some comments on checks in the driver for opcode were considered as layer violation. But I don't see any other way of dealing with this. So it should be fine. Regards, Madhu > OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, STAT, STAT_CLEAR); > OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, ISE, irq_mask); > OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, IE, irq_mask); > @@ -782,7 +789,7 @@ omap_hsmmc_start_command(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host, > struct mmc_command *cmd, > mmc_hostname(host->mmc), cmd->opcode, cmd->arg); > host->cmd = cmd; > > - omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(host); > + omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(host, cmd); > > host->response_busy = 0; > if (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_PRESENT) { > @@ -2094,7 +2101,7 @@ static int __init omap_hsmmc_probe(struct > platform_device *pdev) > mmc->max_seg_size = mmc->max_req_size; > > mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_MMC_HIGHSPEED | MMC_CAP_SD_HIGHSPEED | > - MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY; > + MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY | MMC_CAP_ERASE; > > if (mmc_slot(host).wires >= 8) > mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_8_BIT_DATA; > -- > 1.6.3.3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
