Hi, On Sun, Jul 08 2012, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> I think MMC_CAP2_BKOPS should be removed. If the card BKOPs were already >> enabled, the host must support BKOPs. Therefore, in mmc_start_bkops we >> should check only if card->ext_csd.bkops_en is set. > > If bkops bit is set, it means that use the bkops by default. > If somebody didn't want to use the bkops, then just didn't set the MMC_CAP2_BKOPS. > And eMMC card's BKOPS bit should not be set, > then we can set the BKOPS support with switch command. > For this, MMC_CAP2_INIT_BKOPS is added. > In my case, didn't set the bkops enable bit at first time. > So need to set bkops enable bit with switch command. > > As Maya's mentioned, if we use the bkops by default, we can remove the MMC_CAP2_BKOPS2. I'm not sure I understand. If someone has advertised MMC_CAP2_BKOPS on their host, why do we also need to check for MMC_CAP2_INIT_BKOPS before we enable it in the ext_csd? Why shouldn't we just use one (MMC_CAP2_BKOPS) capability to mean "enable bkops if supported, by writing 1 (if it wasn't already set) to ext_csd[163] to tell the card that we're going to be using bkops"? Are there any disadvantages to doing this? Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- 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
