On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Dong, Chuanxiao
<chuanxiao.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Per Forlin [mailto:per.l...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 4:32 PM
>> To: Dong, Chuanxiao
>> Cc: Jaehoon Chung; linux-mmc; Jae hoon Chung; Chris Ball; Kyungmin Park;
>> Hanumath Prasad; Sebastian Rasmussen; svenk...@ti.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: support BKOPS feature for eMMC
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Per Forlin <per.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Dong, Chuanxiao
>> > <chuanxiao.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Jaehoon,
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Jaehoon Chung [mailto:jh80.ch...@samsung.com]
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:29 PM
>> >>> To: linux-mmc
>> >>> Cc: Chris Ball; Kyungmin Park; Hanumath Prasad; Sebastian Rasmussen; Per
>> Forlin;
>> >>> svenk...@ti.com; Dong, Chuanxiao
>> >>> Subject: [PATCH v2] mmc: support BKOPS feature for eMMC
>> >>>
>> >>> Enable eMMC background operations (BKOPS) feature.
>> >>>
>> >>> If URGENT_BKOPS is set after a response, note that BKOPS
>> >>> are required. After all I/O requests are finished, run
>> >>> BKOPS if required. Should read/write operations be requested
>> >>> during BKOPS, first issue HPI to interrupt the ongoing BKOPS
>> >>> and then service the request.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want to enable this feature, set MMC_CAP2_BKOPS.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
>> >>> CC: Hanumath Prasad <hanumath.pra...@stericsson.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> Changelog V2:
>> >>>       - Use EXCEPTION_STATUS instead of URGENT_BKOPS
>> >>>       - Add function to check Exception_status(for eMMC4.5)
>> >>>       - remove unnecessary code.
>> >>>
>> >>>  drivers/mmc/card/block.c   |    9 +++++
>> >>>  drivers/mmc/card/queue.c   |    4 ++
>> >>>  drivers/mmc/core/core.c    |   87
>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>>  drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c     |    9 ++++-
>> >>>  drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c |    4 ++
>> >>>  include/linux/mmc/card.h   |   12 ++++++
>> >>>  include/linux/mmc/core.h   |    3 ++
>> >>>  include/linux/mmc/host.h   |    1 +
>> >>>  include/linux/mmc/mmc.h    |   14 +++++++
>> >>>  9 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>> >>> index a1cb21f..fbfb405 100644
>> >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>> >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
>> >>> @@ -1192,6 +1192,15 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct
>> mmc_queue
>> >>> *mq, struct request *rqc)
>> >>>               case MMC_BLK_SUCCESS:
>> >>>               case MMC_BLK_PARTIAL:
>> >>>                       /*
>> >>> +                      * Check BKOPS urgency from each R1 response
>> >>> +                      */
>> >>> +                     if (mmc_card_mmc(card) &&
>> >>> +                             (brq->cmd.resp[0] &
>> R1_EXCEPTION_EVENT)) {
>> >>> +                             if (mmc_is_exception_event(card,
>> >>>
>> +                                             EXT_CSD_URGENT_BK
>> OPS))
>> >>>
>> +                                     mmc_card_set_need_bkops(card
>> );
>> >>> +                     }
>> >>> +                     /*
>> >> Have you thought about moving this into mmc_wait_for_req_done()? We can
>> check if the command is a R1 or R1B or not, and set BKOPS bit in there if 
>> needed. I
>> was just thinking if we put such code here, we may only cover the successful
>> scenario but not for the failed cases. Putting in mmc_wait_for_req_done can 
>> cover
>> all cases.
>> >>
>> > Good point! I'm in favor of this change.
>> Or, put the check before the switch-case.
> If we put in mmc_wait_for_req_done, then we can catch all R1 response command 
> result not only for the READ/WRITE command, right?
Yes I agree. The only reason for _not_ moving it to
wait_for_req_done() would be if this response (URGENT_BKOPS) is
directly connected to request handled by mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() and no
one else. I don't know the answer.

>ERASE command is also using R1 response.
I wasn't aware of this. Reading the R1 response should be done in
wait_for_req_done().
Checking if the  response is (URGENT_BKOPS) could still be done in
mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(), if this particular response only happens here.
Otherwise that needs to be done in wait_for_req_done() too.

Thanks,
Per
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to