Hi,
really sorry for the delay! But now, here are my thoughts:
> + /*
> + * Per the SD specification(physical layer version 4.10),
> + * section 4.3.3, it explicitly states that "When the last
> + * block of user area is read using CMD18, the host should
> + * ignore OUT_OF_RANGE error that may occur even the sequence
missing "if"? ..."even if the sequence"... Yeah, it is missing in the
specs, too, but still.
> + * is correct". And JESD84-B51 for eMMC also has a similar
> + * statement on section 6.8.3. As CMD23 is optional for either
> + * cards or hosts, so we need to check the MMC_BLK_CMD23 flag
> + * to prevent the OUT_OF_RANGE error for open-ending multiple
> + * block operations as it's normal behaviour.
> + */
I really like adding this comment. Yet, I don't really get why you check
for CMD23, though, since the SD specs say CMD18? As I understand it,
this is true for all multiblock accesses, so we could also do something
like this (only build tested)?
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
index f1bbfd389367ff..e83d8291ad4f99 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
@@ -1362,6 +1362,14 @@ static inline void mmc_apply_rel_rw(struct mmc_blk_request *brq,
}
}
+#define STOP_ERRORS \
+ (R1_ADDRESS_ERROR | /* Misaligned address */ \
+ R1_BLOCK_LEN_ERROR | /* Transferred block length incorrect */\
+ R1_WP_VIOLATION | /* Tried to write to protected block */ \
+ R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED | /* Card ECC failed */ \
+ R1_CC_ERROR | /* Card controller error */ \
+ R1_ERROR) /* General/unknown error */
+
#define CMD_ERRORS \
(R1_OUT_OF_RANGE | /* Command argument out of range */ \
R1_ADDRESS_ERROR | /* Misaligned address */ \
@@ -1371,9 +1379,9 @@ static inline void mmc_apply_rel_rw(struct mmc_blk_request *brq,
R1_CC_ERROR | /* Card controller error */ \
R1_ERROR) /* General/unknown error */
-static bool mmc_blk_has_cmd_err(struct mmc_command *cmd)
+static bool mmc_blk_has_cmd_err(struct mmc_command *cmd, u32 err_mask)
{
- if (!cmd->error && cmd->resp[0] & CMD_ERRORS)
+ if (!cmd->error && cmd->resp[0] & err_mask)
cmd->error = -EIO;
return cmd->error;
@@ -1400,7 +1408,7 @@ static enum mmc_blk_status mmc_blk_err_check(struct mmc_card *card,
* stop.error indicates a problem with the stop command. Data
* may have been transferred, or may still be transferring.
*/
- if (brq->sbc.error || brq->cmd.error || mmc_blk_has_cmd_err(&brq->stop) ||
+ if (brq->sbc.error || brq->cmd.error || mmc_blk_has_cmd_err(&brq->stop, STOP_ERRORS) ||
brq->data.error) {
switch (mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(card, req, brq, &ecc_err, &gen_err)) {
case ERR_RETRY:
Note that I decided to not couple STOP_ERRORS and CMD_ERRORS in case we
need more adjustments in the future. And your comment needs to be added
somewhere, too. It is just to show what I mean.
Do you think this could work, too? Or am I missing something?
Thanks and kind regards,
Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
