Hi Ulf, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > 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. Cool. > 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 What do you mean with clean-up here? I would have just added the helper function checking R1 error bits and setting stop.error accordingly. > 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. I agree. That's what I meant with "checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)?". I think these are the candidates we care about. Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
