Hi Jaehoon,
I don't have additional comments.
Thanks,
Maya
On Sun, July 22, 2012 6:28 pm, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> Hi Maya,
>
> On 07/20/2012 08:58 PM, 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?
> Ok..i will remove capability. I saw that other people agreed your opinion.
>>
>>> @@ -489,6 +568,53 @@ int mmc_wait_for_cmd(struct mmc_host *host, struct
>>> mmc_command *cmd, int retries
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_wait_for_cmd);
>>>
>>> /**
>>> + * mmc_stop_bkops - stop ongoing BKOPS
>>> + * @card: MMC card to check BKOPS
>>> + *
>>> + * Send HPI command to stop ongoing background operations,
>>> + * to allow rapid servicing of foreground operations,e.g. read/
>>> + * writes. Wait until the card comes out of the programming state
>>> + * to avoid errors in servicing read/write requests.
>>> + */
>>> +int mmc_stop_bkops(struct mmc_card *card)
>>> +{
>>> + int err = 0;
>>> +
>>> + BUG_ON(!card);
>>> + err = mmc_interrupt_hpi(card);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * if err is EINVAL, it's status that can't issue HPI.
>>> + * it should complete the BKOPS.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!err || (err == -EINVAL)) {
>>> + mmc_card_clr_doing_bkops(card);
>>> + err = 0;
>>> + }
>> I don't understand the comment regarding the case where err equals
>> -EINVAL. Can you please explain it?
> When err is -EINVAL, already completed bkops.
> After completed bkops, should be the trans status.
> If my understanding is wrong, let me know.
>>
>>> @@ -392,13 +393,25 @@ int mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, u8 set, u8
>>> index, u8 value,
>>> (index << 16) |
>>> (value << 8) |
>>> set;
>>> - cmd.flags = MMC_RSP_SPI_R1B | MMC_RSP_R1B | MMC_CMD_AC;
>>> + cmd.flags = MMC_CMD_AC;
>>> + if (use_busy_signal)
>>> + cmd.flags |= MMC_RSP_SPI_R1B | MMC_RSP_R1B;
>>> + else
>>> + cmd.flags |= MMC_RSP_SPI_R1 | MMC_RSP_R1;
>>> +
>>> +
>>> cmd.cmd_timeout_ms = timeout_ms;
>>>
>>> err = mmc_wait_for_cmd(card->host, &cmd, MMC_CMD_RETRIES);
>>> if (err)
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * No need to check card status in case of BKOPS LEVEL1 switch
>>> + */
>>
>> Change the comment to be general (don't mention BKOPs level 1),
>> something
>> like:
>> No need to check card status in case of unblocking command.
>> Also, 1 line comment should be /* comment */
> Will fix.
>
> Any other comment? if you have other comment, let me know.
> I will send the patch after fixing on today.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jaehoon Chung
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maya
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
Sent by consultant of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
--
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
