Hi WolfSang: I mis-understand your meaning of the IO-Accessors. It maybe work when the IO-Accessors are used. Wait a minute, I would resend the patches use he IO-Accessors methods. Best Regards Richard Zhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhu Richard-R65037 > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:22 AM > To: 'Wolfram Sang'; Russell King - ARM Linux > Cc: Zhao Richard-B20223; cjb@xxxxxxxxxx; eric@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxzsc@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] mmc: sdhci: add quirk > SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO > > Hi Wolfsang: > Maybe I don't describe my thoughts clearly and exactly. > I feel it's not easy to add the the IO-accessors in every cmd execution > procedure, to make a double check why a IO-accessor is needed or not. > > Best Regards > Richard Zhu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:16 PM > > To: Russell King - ARM Linux > > Cc: Zhu Richard-R65037; Zhao Richard-B20223; cjb@xxxxxxxxxx; > > eric@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linuxzsc@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mmc: sdhci: add quirk > > SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:09:05AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > - if (cpu_is_mx35() || cpu_is_mx51()) > > > > > > > + if (cpu_is_mx53()) > > > > > > > + host->quirks |= > > > > > > > + SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO; > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you tried it doing it via IO-accessors? > > > > > Richard Zhu: This quirk is used to fix a mechanism problem in > > > > > the > > MMC CMDs execution procedure. > > > > > It would be very abrupt and ugly, if the IO-accessors are added > > into these original procedures. > > > > > > > > Please don't get it personal, but IMHO it is pretty ugly the way > > > > it is now. This quirk is very imx-specific and calling something > > > > like SDHCI_VENDOR_SPEC in sdhci.c looks clearly wrong to me. By > > > > the way, what does this bit do, the description doesn't say so? > > > > > > SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO is rather too verbose. Isn't > > > there a shorter version which could be used? > > > SDHCI_QUIRK_SDIO_MULTIBLK_INT maybe? > > > > As I understand, the non-SDIO part is handled here: > Yes, it is. The following codes are used to solve non-sdio part. > That bit is introduced by imx53 latest spec. > I think so too that the SDHCI_VENDOR_SPEC shouldn't be used in sdhci.c > file, but I don't have better idea to fix the issue in this situation. > Option: > Make a double check when issue every MMC CMD, to figure out whether a IO- > accessor is needed or not? > Two checkpoints would be needed, one is in the sdhci_send_command > function, the other should be in sdhci_data_finish func. > How do you think this method? > > > > > + /*Set the CMD_TYPE of the CMD12, fix no INT in MULTI_BLK IO */ > > + if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO) { > > + if (cmd->opcode == 12) > > + flags |= SDHCI_CMD_ABORTCMD; > > + } > > > > But I'd really like to avoid the quirk bit. Maybe we'll get a better > > idea once we understand what that magic bit actually does. For a > > start, we might simply set SDHCI_QUIRK_NO_MULTIBLOCK for mx53 like we > > do for other imx. > As I know that, this bit is used to make the machine stat of the eSDHC IC > to be a correct stat after SDIO Multi-Read. > > > > Regards, > > > > Wolfram > > > > -- > > Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang > > | > > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ > > | -- 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
