Reviewed-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Contains a couple of bug fixes reported by Akinobu Mita, In adition to
static checker warnings reported by Dan Carpenter.
Akinobu Mita (1):
scsi: ufs: fix reference counting of W-LUs
Dolev Raviv (4):
scsi: ufs: fix static checker errors in
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
From: Dolev Raviv dra...@codeaurora.org
Allow UFS device to complete its initialization and accept
SCSI commands by setting fDeviceInit flag. The device may take
time for this operation and hence the host should poll until
fDeviceInit flag is
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
As part of device initialization sequence, sending NOP OUT UPIU and
waiting for NOP IN UPIU response is mandatory. This confirms that the
device UFS Transport (UTP) layer is functional and the host can configure
the device with further commands. Add
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Background operations in the UFS device can be disabled by
the host to reduce the response latency of transfer requests.
Add support for enabling/disabling the background operations
during runtime suspend/resume of the device.
If the device is in
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Add runtime PM helpers to suspend/resume UFS controller at runtime.
Enable runtime PM by default for pci and platform drivers as the
initialized hardware can suspend if it is not used after bootup.
Signed-off-by: Sujit Reddy Thumma
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
There is a possible race condition in the hardware when the abort
command is issued to terminate the ongoing SCSI command as described
below:
- A bit in the door-bell register is set in the controller for a
new SCSI command.
- In some rare
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Currently, sending Task Management (TM) command to the card might
be broken in some scenarios as listed below:
Problem: If there are more than 8 TM commands the implementation
returns error to the caller.
Fix: Wait for one of the slots
Tested with error injection.
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
As of now SCSI initiated error handling is broken because,
the reset APIs don't try to bring back the device initialized and
ready for further transfers.
In case of timeouts, the scsi error handler takes care of handling
Tested with error injection.
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Error handling in UFS driver is broken and resets the host controller
for fatal errors without re-initialization. Correct the fatal error
handling sequence according to UFS Host Controller Interface (HCI)
v1.1
Hi Chris,
Can you please merge this patch to mmc-utils?
Thanks,
Maya
Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org
---
Android.mk | 11 +++
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Android.mk
diff --git a/Android.mk b/Android.mk
new file mode
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
As part of device initialization sequence, sending NOP OUT UPIU and
waiting for NOP IN UPIU response is mandatory. This confirms that the
device UFS Transport (UTP) layer is functional and the host can configure
the device with further commands. Add
Tested-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
From: Dolev Raviv dra...@codeaurora.org
Allow UFS device to complete its initialization and accept SCSI
commands by setting fDeviceInit flag. The device may take time
for this operation and hence the host should poll until fDeviceInit
flag is
Hi Chris,
Can you please approve this patch and the corresponding mmc-utils patch?
Thanks,
Maya
Maya,
This looks good to me.
Thanks,
Luca
-Original Message-
From: linux-mmc-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-mmc-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of me...@codeaurora.org
Hi,
Ulf / Luca - I would appreciate if you could review this new version with
high priority.
If you don't have additional concerns I would like to try and push the
changes to kernel-3.10.
Thanks,
Maya
The sanitize support is added as a user-app ioctl call, and
was removed from the block-device
Hi Ulf,
You are right, the caps2 flag for Sanitize can be removed.
I will send a fix for that.
Thanks,
Maya
On 17 April 2013 13:38, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The sanitize support is added as a user-app ioctl call, and
was removed from the block-device request, since its purpose is
Hi Chris,
Can we push this change to kernel-3.10?
Thanks,
Maya
The write packing statistics are used for debug purposes, in order
to get the amount of packing in different scenarios.
The statistics also include the reason for stopping the creation of
the packed request.
Signed-off-by: Maya
Hi Luca,
See below (2 comments).
Thanks,
Maya
Hi Maya,
-Original Message-
From: linux-mmc-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-mmc-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Maya Erez
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:39 PM
To: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Cc:
Hi Chris and Luca,
Sorry for the late response.
Yaniv is on vacation for the last month and will be back at the end of the
week.
We will add the HPI in case Sanitize times-out.
Thanks,
Maya
Hi Yaniv, Maya,
On Mon, Mar 11 2013, Luca Porzio (lporzio) wrote:
In case of Sanitize timeout, the
Hi Luca,
Having a timeout that takes into consideration the card size would be
artificial as we cannot have the ability to create a function for its
calculation that will fit all the card vendors.
I suggest keeping it as a constant value for simplicity, as 4 minutes
cover all the card sizes.
Forwarding this patch in case someone missed it, as Jaehoon did.
Original Message
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/3] mmc: core: Add support for idle time BKOPS
From:Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
Date:Thu, January 10, 2013 12:15 pm
To:
Thanks, Ulf. Your help is appreciated.
On 10 January 2013 10:22, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi Ulf,
See below.
Thanks,
Maya
Hi Maya,
On 24 December 2012 14:51, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Devices have various maintenance operations need to perform
internally.
In order to
Hi Ulf,
See below.
Thanks,
Maya
Hi Maya,
On 24 December 2012 14:51, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Devices have various maintenance operations need to perform internally.
In order to reduce latencies during time critical operations like read
and write, it is better to execute
Hi Ulf,
Sorry for the late response.
See my reply below.
Thanks,
Maya
On Thu, December 6, 2012 2:18 am, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Hi Maya,
On 4 December 2012 22:17, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi Ulf,
Let me try to better explain:
The idea behind the periodic BKOPS is to check the card's need
Hi Ulf,
Let me try to better explain:
The idea behind the periodic BKOPS is to check the card's need for BKOPS
periodically in order to prevent an urgent BKOPS need by the card.
In order to actually manage to prevent the urgent BKOPS need, the host
should give the card enough time to perform the
Hi Jaehoon,
With this patch we don't expect to see any degradation. Thanks for
verifying that.
The test plan would be to run the lmdd and iozone benchmarks with this
patch and verify that the performance is not degraded.
I verified it with the msm_sdcc controller.
Chris - We do expect it to
Hi Chris,
I managed to find a solution in which there is no need to check the number
of written / discarded sectors as a trigger for BKOPS status check.
I moved the code that checks the need to stop the BKOPS to mmc/block code,
in which there is no need for additional claim_host and remove_host
Hi Jaehoon,
Any update on this patch review and testing?
Thanks,
Maya
On Mon, October 15, 2012 11:53 pm, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Hi Maya,
I'm testing with your patch..but i need to have the more time for testing.
In now, it looks good to me. Thank you for working the idle bkops.
Best Regards,
Hi Chris and all,
According to the eMMC4.5 standard, a host that enables the BKOPS_EN bit
must also check the BKOPS status periodically:
Host shall check the status periodically and start background operations
as needed, so that the device has enough time for its maintenance
operations, to help
Hi Venkat,
Sorry for the late response. I came back from a long vacation and had many
issues to take care of.
If you still need a rebased version of the packed commands patches, I can
send a rebased version of the write packing control patch once Seungwon
Jeon will send the rebased version of the
On Thu, August 30, 2012 12:36 am, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
On 08/05/2012 10:08 PM, Maya Erez wrote:
When the mmcqd thread is idle, a delayed work is created to check the
need for BKOPs. The time to start the delayed work is calculated based
on the host controller suspend timeout, in case it was
Hi Jens,
Can you refer to my reply?
Currently the test-iosched is our only option for testing the eMMC4.5
features on a HS200 eMMC card.
Thanks,
Maya
On Thu, August 2, 2012 6:16 am, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Tue, July 31, 2012 8:46 am, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 07/31/2012 04:36 PM,
On Fri, July 27, 2012 2:07 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Thu, July 26, 2012 8:28 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Mon, July 23, 2012 5:22 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Mon,
On Tue, July 31, 2012 8:46 am, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 07/31/2012 04:36 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi Jens,
Do you have comments on this patch?
Can we push it to kernel 3.6 version?
I have questions - what is this good for? In other words, explain to me
why this is useful code. And in
Hi Jens,
Do you have comments on this patch?
Can we push it to kernel 3.6 version?
Thanks,
Maya
On Tue, July 31, 2012 7:25 am, Maya Erez wrote:
The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching
specific requests according to the test case and declare PASS/FAIL
according to the
On Thu, July 26, 2012 8:28 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Mon, July 23, 2012 5:22 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2012 12:26 am, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
On Wed, July 25, 2012 2:32 am, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
Adding a new ioctl to support sanitize operation in eMMC
cards version 4.5.
The sanitize ioctl support helps performing this operation
via user application.
Signed-off-by: Yaniv
On Wed, July 25, 2012 2:32 am, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
@@ -238,6 +238,7 @@ struct mmc_host {
#define MMC_CAP2_BROKEN_VOLTAGE (1 7)/* Use the broken
voltage */
#define MMC_CAP2_DETECT_ON_ERR (1 8)/* On I/O err check
card removal
*/
#define MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
On Wed, July 25, 2012 4:31 am, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
Adding a new ioctl to support sanitize operation in eMMC
cards version 4.5.
The sanitize ioctl support helps performing this operation
via user application.
Signed-off-by: Yaniv
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org
On Wed, July 25, 2012 4:31 am, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
This feature delete the unmap memory region of the eMMC card,
by writing to a specific register in the EXT_CSD
unmap region is the memory region that were previously deleted
(by
On Mon, July 23, 2012 5:22 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2012 12:26 am, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi, [removing Jens and the documentation list, since now we're
talking about the MMC side only]
On Wed, Jul 18 2012,
Attached are the trace logs for parallel read and write lmdd operations.
On Tue, July 24, 2012 1:44 am, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Mon, July 23, 2012 5:22 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2012 12:26 am, Chris Ball
On Wed, July 18, 2012 12:26 am, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi, [removing Jens and the documentation list, since now we're
talking about the MMC side only]
On Wed, Jul 18 2012, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Is there anything else that holds this patch from being pushed to
mmc-next?
Yes, I'm still
On Wed, July 18, 2012 11:46 pm, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Yaniv,
On Thu, Jun 28 2012, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
This feature delete the unmap memory region of the eMMC card,
by writing to a specific register in the EXT_CSD
unmap region is the memory region that were previously deleted
(by erase, trim
Hi Chris,
Is there anything else that holds this patch from being pushed to mmc-next?
Thanks,
Maya
On Tue, July 17, 2012 3:50 pm, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Muthu,
On Mon, Jul 16 2012, Muthu Kumar wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 15 2012,
Hi Chris,
Can we push this change to mmc-next?
Thanks,
Maya
On Mon, July 2, 2012 5:15 am, Maya Erez wrote:
Separate MMC specific attributes from general block device
attributes and move them from the /sys/block/BLOCK_DEV directory
to /sys/block/BLOCK_DEV/mmc directory
Signed-off-by: Maya
Hi Chris,
Can we push this change to mmc-next?
Thanks,
Maya
On Mon, July 2, 2012 5:15 am, Maya Erez wrote:
The write packing control will ensure that read requests latency is
not increased due to long write packed commands.
The trigger for enabling the write packing is managing to pack
On Wed, June 13, 2012 3:21 pm, Muthu Kumar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Mon, June 11, 2012 5:28 pm, Muthu Kumar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Muthu Kumar muthu.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Maya Erez
On Tue, June 12, 2012 1:13 pm, Jeff Moyer wrote:
me...@codeaurora.org writes:
On Tue, June 12, 2012 7:09 am, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org writes:
The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching
specific requests according to the test case and declare
On Mon, June 11, 2012 5:28 pm, Muthu Kumar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Muthu Kumar muthu.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The write packing control will ensure that read requests latency is
not increased due to long write
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:40 AM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi,
How can we check the effect?
Do you have any result?
We ran parallel lmdd read and write operations and found out that
On Tue, June 12, 2012 7:09 am, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org writes:
The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching
specific requests according to the test case and declare PASS/FAIL
according to the requests completion error code
What sort of tests have
On Tue, June 12, 2012 7:11 am, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org writes:
Expose the following packed commands tests:
- Test the write packed commands list preparation
- Simulate a returned error code
- Send an invalid packed command to the card
Signed-off-by: Lee Susman
On Mon, June 11, 2012 5:28 pm, Muthu Kumar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Muthu Kumar muthu.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The write packing control will ensure that read requests latency is
not increased due to long write
Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi,
How can we check the effect?
Do you have any result?
We ran parallel lmdd read and write operations and found out that the
write packing causes the read throughput to drop from 24MB/s to 12MB/s.
The write packing control managed to increase
Looks good to me.
This feature delete the unmap memory region of the eMMC card,
by writing to a specific register in the EXT_CSD
unmap region is the memory region that were previously deleted
(by erase, trim or discard operation)
Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi yga...@codeaurora.org
Hi,
How can we check the effect?
Do you have any result?
We ran parallel lmdd read and write operations and found out that the
write packing causes the read throughput to drop from 24MB/s to 12MB/s.
The write packing control managed to increase the read throughput back to
the original value.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Maya Erez me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching
specific requests according to the test case and declare PASS/FAIL
according to the requests completion error code
I can't get the point. Isn't this possible
+
+ for (i = 1 ; i = max_num_of_packed_reqs ; ++i) {
This is something magical number for iterations. why can not we start
from
zero.
The statistics are kept in the array in the index that equals the number
of packed requests. Therefore, they are kept in the array in indexes 1 to
max num
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:58AM, Maya Erez wrote:
We beleive that the chip-specific code for net2280 and goku at the
beginning of usb_ep_autoconfig can be moved to this new gadget op,
therefore it is also needed for today's implementation. I will do the
cahnge and send a new patch for review
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 09:58AM, Greg KH wrote:
First rule of kernel development, don't add infrastructure that you do
not need today.
We beleive that the chip-specific code for net2280 and goku at the
beginning of usb_ep_autoconfig can be moved to this new gadget op,
therefore it is also
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:58AM, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, but please note the word of proprietary usually means something
else when talking about kernel code (i.e. licensing issues.)
I'll be glad to take this type of patch when you also provide a patch
that uses the callback, but not before then.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:15AM, Greg KH wrote:
What do you exactly mean by proprietary search algorithm?
Our implementation for finding an EP with the required number of streams
may not fit the needs and platform definitions of all controllers. For
example, having the minimum number of streams
62 matches
Mail list logo
