Hi Simon, On Wednesday 13 June 2012 10:12:01 Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:56:09PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > The MMC_SLEEP_AWAKE and SD_IO_SEND_OP_COND commands share the same > > opcode. SD_IO_SEND_OP_COND isn't supported by the SH MMCIF, but > > MMC_SLEEP_AWAKE is. Discriminate between the two commands using the > > command flags, and reject SD_IO_SEND_OP_COND only. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c | 14 ++++---------- > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > Not supporting the MMC_SLEEP_AWAKE command makes system suspend fail if an > > MMC or eMMC device supporting sleep/wake is connected. The issue has been > > first noticed on the Armadillo 800 EVA board. > > Hi Laurent, > > Do you have a test-case for this? echo mem > /sys/power/state on Armadillo 800 EVA was my test case. It failed without the patch, and succeeds with it. > Also, did you check to make sure that the Mackerel still works? Yes it still works. However, I have no way to test the MMC_SLEEP_AWAKE command on the Mackerel board, as my MMC card doesn't support it (on the Armadillo the eMMC chip supports the MMC_SLEEP_AWAKE command). BTW, I wonder whether the current implementation is really the best one. If the hardware doesn't support SD/SDIO commands, instead of intercepting commands and rejecting the ones used by SD/SDIO at probe time, wouldn't it be better for host drivers to tell that they don't support SD and/or SDIO using flags in the mmc_host structure ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
