On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. >> >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. >> >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). >> >> Does that work for you? > > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the > core. We roughly need something like this: > > if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED) > stop.error = -EIO; > > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in > mmc_blk_err_check(). > > Do you get what I mean? I get it - and yes you have a point. By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case. So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to), we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be consistent. Kind regards Uffe -- 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
