On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:12:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:26:42 +0100 >> Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 03:58:38PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Matt, >> > > >> > > Just FYI, the newer version of these patches also have a whole bunch >> > > of acked-by and tested-by tags, see this email: >> > > >> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/20/429 >> > > >> > > Thanks for your help! >> > >> > Argh, right. Claws-mail searching has completely failed me. I didn't >> > even see that thread when searching to "tmio_mmc". Back to mutt.. >> > >> > Andrew, can you drop the patch with my changelog and pick up the one in >> > that thread seeing as it's got all the tags and a new changelog? Thanks. >> >> I actually already had it, as >> tmio_mmc-dont-clear-unhandled-pending-interrupts.patch, scheduled for >> 2.6.36 and -stable. >> >> What's the score with "tmio_mmc: allow 2 byte requests in 4-bit mode"? >> I didn't merge it because Ian said "This change needs to be modified to >> test what hardware is present. this wont work on my hardware TTBOMK.". >> Then I later _did_ merge it because it got sneakily renamed to >> "tmio_mmc: revise a limit of the data size". > > I've stuck my oar in and confused everybody now, it seems. As Ian > pointed out, before "tmio_mmc: revise a limit of the data size" can be > merged something like the following is needed, > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc.c > index ee7d0a5..3eabd91 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc.c > @@ -657,11 +657,15 @@ static void tmio_mmc_release_dma(struct tmio_mmc_host *host) > static int tmio_mmc_start_data(struct tmio_mmc_host *host, > struct mmc_data *data) > { > + struct mfd_cell *cell = host->pdev->dev.platform_data; > + struct tmio_mmc_data *pdata = cell->driver_data; > + > pr_debug("setup data transfer: blocksize %08x nr_blocks %d\n", > data->blksz, data->blocks); > > /* Hardware cannot perform 1 and 2 byte requests in 4 bit mode */ > - if (data->blksz < 4 && host->mmc->ios.bus_width == MMC_BUS_WIDTH_4) { > + if (data->blksz < 4 && !(pdata->flags & TMIO_MMC_2BYTE_BLKSZ) && > + host->mmc->ios.bus_width == MMC_BUS_WIDTH_4) { > pr_err("%s: %d byte block unsupported in 4 bit mode\n", > mmc_hostname(host->mmc), data->blksz); > return -EINVAL; > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h b/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h > index f07425b..56467cb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h > @@ -52,6 +52,11 @@ > > /* tmio MMC platform flags */ > #define TMIO_MMC_WRPROTECT_DISABLE (1 << 0) > +/* > + * Some controllers can support a 2-byte block size when the bus width > + * is configured in 4-bit mode. > + */ > +#define TMIO_MMC_2BYTE_BLKSZ (1 << 1) > > int tmio_core_mmc_enable(void __iomem *cnf, int shift, unsigned long base); > int tmio_core_mmc_resume(void __iomem *cnf, int shift, unsigned long base); > > > Magnus, since people have tested 2-byte blksz transfers on SDHI and it > works, does it make sense to have this change to > drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c? Are you aware of a version of the SDHI > block that doens't support this mode? Yes, updating drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c seems like a good plan. We've tested this on a few different SH/ARM processors with SDHI, and they all seem to be ok with 2-byte mode. > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c b/drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c > index cd16459..1f3a1b1 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/sh_mobile_sdhi.c > @@ -112,6 +112,12 @@ static int __init sh_mobile_sdhi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > mmc_data->ocr_mask = p->tmio_ocr_mask; > } > > + /* > + * All SDHI blocks support 2-byte and larger block sizes in 4-bit > + * bus width mode. > + */ > + mmc_data->flags |= TMIO_MMC_2BYTE_BLKSZ; > + > if (p && p->dma_slave_tx >= 0 && p->dma_slave_rx >= 0) { > priv->param_tx.slave_id = p->dma_slave_tx; > priv->param_rx.slave_id = p->dma_slave_rx; > > So I think these patches need to either be merged into "tmio_mmc: revise > a limit of the data size" with a bit in the changelog explaning that > some tmio blocks don't support 2-byte tranfers, or added as separate > patches before it. > > Does everyone agree? I certainly agree. =) By the way, you may want to check that this patch doesn't collide with the SDHI/MMCIF hotplug patches that were recently posted to the linux-sh list. Thanks a lot! / magnus -- 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
