On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:05:19PM +0800, Chuanxiao.Dong wrote:
> From 04704a1c769dc4d15b5fb54d65d8ad46f6c5f57a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:42:32 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] mmc: add erase timeout calculation routine for sdhci host
>
> Erase command needs R1b response which means after HD handle
> a CMD_RESPONSE interrupt, driver also need to wait for a while.
> For SDHCI host controller, HD also need to handle a DATA_END
> interrupt.
> During device handle erase cmd, if the blocks need to be erased
> are too many, some SDHCI host controller maybe launch a TIMEOUT
> interrupt before the erase cmd finishing. To avoid this kind of
> situation, SDHCI HD need to calculate a correct timeout value
> before issuing erase cmd. Patch added a routine to implement
> this.
Just a formal thing I noticed on a glimpse...
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> index 154cbf8..79fcca2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> @@ -879,6 +879,48 @@ static void sdhci_finish_data(struct sdhci_host *host)
> tasklet_schedule(&host->finish_tasklet);
> }
>
> +static void sdhci_set_erasetimeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
> + unsigned int erase_timeout)
> +{
> + u64 current_timeout;
> + int count = 0xe;
I'd suggest a define with a speaking name instead of all the hardcoded 0xe.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
