> Check for erase specific R1 errors so e.g. an OOR erase is not reported as
> successful when it never executed.
>
> There could be checks for more error bits but R1_ERASE_SEQ_ERROR on
> CMD38 should catch all that are reported by hardware anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <cloehle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> -v2: Remove unneeded error bit checking
> mmc_cmds.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mmc_cmds.c b/mmc_cmds.c
> index e6d3273..97fdb59 100644
> --- a/mmc_cmds.c
> +++ b/mmc_cmds.c
> @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@
> #define WPTYPE_PWRON 2
> #define WPTYPE_PERM 3
>
> -
> int read_extcsd(int fd, __u8 *ext_csd)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> @@ -2668,6 +2667,18 @@ static int erase(int dev_fd, __u32 argin, __u32 start,
> __u32 end)
> if (ret)
> perror("Erase multi-cmd ioctl");
>
> + /* Does not work for SPI cards */
> + if (multi_cmd->cmds[0].response[0] & R1_ERASE_PARAM) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Erase start response: 0x%08x\n",
> + multi_cmd->cmds[0].response[0]);
> + ret = -EIO;
> + }
Your concluding remark in your V1:
" I think ERASE_PARAM should be checked for CMD36, ERASE_SEQ_ERROR for CMD38, I'm fine with removing ERASE_RESET check for the patch, it is caught at CMD38 ERASE_SEQ_ERROR anyway.
What do you say?"
But you are testing R1_ERASE_PARAM in CMD35?
Honestly, I don't really know, just want to verify that you changed your mind.
Thanks,
Avri
> + if (multi_cmd->cmds[2].response[0] & R1_ERASE_SEQ_ERROR) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Erase response: 0x%08x\n",
> + multi_cmd->cmds[2].response[0]);
> + ret = -EIO;
> + }
> +
> free(multi_cmd);
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.37.3
>
>
> Hyperstone GmbH | Reichenaustr. 39a | 78467 Konstanz Managing Director:
> Dr. Jan Peter Berns.
> Commercial register of local courts: Freiburg HRB381782
