On 30/09/14 15:09, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 30 September 2014 13:21, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> wrote: >> On 25/09/14 12:20, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 23 September 2014 22:00, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> Nowhere in the SD Association Specifications does >>>> it state that the stop command has an R1 response >>>> type. It is always R1B. Change accordingly. >>> >>> It depends on how detailed you read the spec. :-) >>> >>> First, R1B is the same as R1, but with optional busy signalling on DAT0. >> >> Not exactly: >> >> "R1b is identical to R1 with an optional busy signal >> transmitted on the data line. The card may become >> busy after receiving these commands based on its >> state prior to the command reception. The Host shall >> check for busy at the response. Refer to Section 4.12.3 >> for a detailed description and timing diagrams." >> >> Note it says "The Host shall check for busy at the response." >> It does not say "The Host is not affected" > > Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I was referring to the format of the response. > >> >>> >>> Just reading the table listing CMDS their related response types, >>> confirms what you are saying. CMD12 has an R1B. >> >> Which is explicit and definitive. >> >>> Though, going into the details of the "Timing" section where this is >>> clearly visualized in diagrams, you realize there are no busy >>> signalling associated with a DATA READ, only for DATA WRITE. It is >>> also indicated in earlier sections of the spec when "DATA READ/WRITE >>> sequences are described", but I think the "Timing" section describes >>> this the best. >> >> You are looking at it only from the point of view of the card. The host >> controller can expect that CMD12/R1b is the only valid combination >> because that is what the specification defines. You can't know what >> the host controller will do if you tell it to do CMD12/R1 because that >> is outside the spec. >> > > It doesn't matter from what point of view we look at it. It's all > about the details of the spec, which tells us there are no busy > signalling involved with a READ. HW designers of MMC controllers > should know this as well.
HW designers may well choose to follow the spec. > > Unless you really are fixing a regression here, I can't see the need > for your patch. No, I have a host controller that wants to give a TC interrupt on CMD12 which is correct if the response type is R1b but incorrect if the response type is R1. However I am anyway fixing that with a quirk because theoretically MMC is affected too - although not in practice because it uses CMD23 instead of CMD12. That got me thinking that we really ought to follow the spec and use R1b. -- 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
