On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:00:03AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > >> @@ -2930,7 +2930,10 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > >> if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK) > >> host->timeout_clk = mmc->f_max / 1000; > >> > >> - mmc->max_discard_to = (1 << 27) / host->timeout_clk; > >> + if (host->ops->get_max_timeout) > >> + mmc->max_discard_to = host->ops->get_max_timeout(host); > > > > Does "timeout" conceptually equals to "discard_to"? If not, we might > > want to write it in the either form below to avoid messing these two > > concepts. > > > > No, they're two concepts but the max_discard_to equals to the max timeout value > the host supports. Does it? Shouldn't max_discard_to equals to max_timeout_value / timeout_clk? > > > mmc->max_discard_to = host->ops->get_max_timeout(host) / host->timeout_clk; > > > > or > > > > mmc->max_discard_to = host->ops->get_max_discard_to(host); > > > > I guess you may want to go for the second one. > > > > The original way looks ok to me. > Platform host driver does not need to know detail about discard, > just tell the max timeout value it supports is ok. > Common sdhci driver will handle it well. Well, looking at the patch #2, esdhc_get_max_timeout() returns max_to / (esdhc_pltfm_get_max_clock(host) / 1000) not just the max timeout value - max_to, so your platform host driver is knowing and handling the details about discard_ro, i.e. the discard_ro has to be max_timeout_value / timeout_clk. Shawn -- 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
