On 25 May 2018 at 08:18, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> mmc_do_erase() gives up checking for bit 17 and bit 18 in device
> status, as the spec asks hosts to ignore these two bits according
> to JESD84-B51 spec, section 6.13, table 68(Device status). Also,
> erase need the device in unlocked status, so we add checking for
> bit 25.
>
> The most important part is checking for bit 15, WP_ERASE_SKIP. The
> spec says "Only partial address space was erased due to existing write
> protected blocks.", which obviously means we should fail this I/O.
> Otherwise, the partial erased data stored in nonvalatile flash violates
> the data integrity from the view of I/O owner, which probably confuse
> it when further used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index 42cfcb6..2cb8450 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -2077,7 +2077,7 @@ static int mmc_do_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from,
> cmd.flags = MMC_RSP_R1 | MMC_CMD_AC;
> /* Do not retry else we can't see errors */
> err = mmc_wait_for_cmd(card->host, &cmd, 0);
> - if (err || (cmd.resp[0] & 0xFDF92000)) {
> + if (err || (cmd.resp[0] & 0xFFF9A000)) {
Well, changing from one magic to another doesn't improve the readability here.
Could you possibly invent a "define" for the bitmask instead and then
state at the definition why and what bit we care about?
> pr_err("error %d requesting status %#x\n",
> err, cmd.resp[0]);
> err = -EIO;
> --
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
