On 6 September 2016 at 20:17, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6 September 2016 at 04:55, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Before issuing mmc_erase() function, users always have checked if it can >> erase with mmc_can_erase/trim/discard() function, thus remove the redundant >> erase checking in mmc_erase() function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes since v3: >> - Split into 3 separate patches. >> - Add test tag by Shawn. >> >> Changes since v2: >> - Add nr checking and other optimization in mmc_erase() function. >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Add the alignment if card->erase_size is not power of 2. >> --- >> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 7 ------- >> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >> index e55cde6..7d7209d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >> @@ -2217,13 +2217,6 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from, unsigned int nr, >> unsigned int rem, to = from + nr; >> int err; >> >> - if (!(card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_ERASE) || >> - !(card->csd.cmdclass & CCC_ERASE)) >> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> - >> - if (!card->erase_size) >> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> - > > Could we postpone this until after a clean-up-series of the mmc erase functions? > > Until the function remains an exported API, I think it should keep > doing this validations. OK. That's reasonable. > >> if (mmc_card_sd(card) && arg != MMC_ERASE_ARG) >> return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> > > Kind regards > Uffe -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- 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
