On 20/07/12 14:58, merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> On Thu, July 19, 2012 8:12 am, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> +void mmc_start_bkops(struct mmc_card *card, bool from_exception)
>> +{
>> + int err;
>> + int timeout;
>> + bool use_busy_signal;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(!card);
>> +
>> + if (!card->ext_csd.bkops_en || mmc_card_doing_bkops(card) ||
>> + !(card->host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_BKOPS))
>> + return;
> To my opinion, the host cannot decide not to support BKOPs if it is
> enabled by the card. In such a case, the card will expect the host to
> start the BKOPs and may get into performance degradation.
> I think the MMC_CAP2_BKOPS should be removed.
> Does everyone agree or do I miss something?
I agree. The spec says of bkops_en "Host is indicating that it shall
periodically write to BKOPS_START field to manually start
background operations."
--
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
