On 10/24/2011 05:32 AM, Shashidhar Hiremath wrote:
Hi Arnd,
As explained in previous mail, the IOCTL is actually an inteface to
block layer and it is only expecting read/write commands to be sent
through the interface.The prrof of it can be seen in write_flag
present in the IOCTL structure whi
On 10/22/2011 11:38 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
On Sat, Oct 22 2011, Sebastian Rasmussen wrote:
Hi!
What we're worried about is someone issuing the perm read-only command,
and not realizing that it really means that they can never ever write
any more changes to their eMMC -- it's a on
On 10/03/2011 01:19 PM, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
Hi James,
- Original Message -
From: "J Freyensee"
Yeah, I know I'd be doing myself a huge favor by working off of
mmc-next
(or close to it), but product-wise, my department doesn't care for
sustaining current pl
On 10/01/2011 11:20 PM, Andrei E. Warkentin wrote:
Hi James,
2011/9/30 J Freyensee:
So I have a question on write behavior.
Say mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() is called. Say the mmc_queue *mq variable passed
in is a write.
You mean the struct request?
Say that write is buffered, delayed into
On 09/30/2011 01:22 AM, Andrei E. Warkentin wrote:
Hi James,
2011/9/29 J Freyensee:
As I've been playing around with with buffering/caching, it seems to me an
opportunity to simplify things in the MMC space is to eliminate the need for
a mmc_blk_request struct or mmc_request struct.
On 09/29/2011 01:17 AM, Per Förlin wrote:
On 09/29/2011 09:24 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
Now in the 3.0 kernel I know mmc_wait_for_req() has changed and the goal was
to try and make that function a bit more non-blocking,
What has been
On 09/28/2011 03:24 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:34 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
On 09/28/2011 02:03 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
On 09/28/2011 01:34 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, J Freyensee
On 09/28/2011 02:03 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
On 09/28/2011 01:34 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
On 09/28/2011 12:06 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Linus Walleij
On 09/28/2011 01:34 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, J Freyensee
wrote:
On 09/28/2011 12:06 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Linus Walleij
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Praveen G K
wrote:
I am working on the block driver
On 09/28/2011 12:06 PM, Praveen G K wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Linus Walleij
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Praveen G K wrote:
I am working on the block driver module of the eMMC driver (SDIO 3.0
controller). I am seeing very low write speed for eMMC transfers. On
f
On 09/22/2011 04:58 PM, NamJae Jeon wrote:
2011/9/23 J Freyensee:
On 09/22/2011 04:15 PM, NamJae Jeon wrote:
2011/9/23 J Freyensee:
On 09/22/2011 08:34 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
It allows general purpose parition in MMC Device. If it is enable, it
will
make mmcblk0gp1,gp2,gp3,gp4 partition
On 09/22/2011 04:15 PM, NamJae Jeon wrote:
2011/9/23 J Freyensee:
On 09/22/2011 08:34 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
It allows general purpose parition in MMC Device. If it is enable, it will
make mmcblk0gp1,gp2,gp3,gp4 partition like this.
cat /proc/paritition
179 0 847872 mmcblk0
On 09/21/2011 07:12 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
EXT_CSD[248] includes the default maximum timeout for CMD6.
This field is added at eMMC4.5 Spec. And it can be used for default
timeout except for some operations which don't define the timeout(i.e.
background operation, sanitize, flush cache) in eMMC4
On 09/22/2011 08:34 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
It allows general purpose parition in MMC Device. If it is enable, it will make
mmcblk0gp1,gp2,gp3,gp4 partition like this.
cat /proc/paritition
179 0 847872 mmcblk0
179 192 4096 mmcblk0gp4
179 160 4096 mmcblk0gp3
179 128
On 09/22/2011 04:13 AM, Girish K S wrote:
This patch adds the support of the HS200 bus speed for
eMMC 4.5 devices.
The eMMC 4.5 devices have support for 200MHz bus speed.
The mmc core and host modules have been touched to add support
for this module.
It is necessary to know the card type in the s
On 09/21/2011 11:26 AM, J Freyensee wrote:
Hello:
Could anyone tell me in struct mmc_queue, what is the difference between
'struct scatterlist *bounce_sg' and 'struct scatterlist *sg' is?
I see 'bounce_sg' get used to copy data from/to the buffer upon a host
re
Hello:
Could anyone tell me in struct mmc_queue, what is the difference between
'struct scatterlist *bounce_sg' and 'struct scatterlist *sg' is?
I see 'bounce_sg' get used to copy data from/to the buffer upon a host
read/write operation so I assume 'bounce_sg' points to the most recent
data
On 09/07/2011 10:59 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
Erase unit size of high capacity is multiple of 512KiB not 1024KiB.
I'm just wondering, what are these patches based off of? I have not
been able to connect to anything hosted by kernel.org since I came back
from vacation due to the security breac
On 08/23/2011 09:56 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:31:55PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
[Adding linux-sparse@ to CC]
On Tue, Aug 23 2011, Venkatraman S wrote:
Fix the sparse warning output
"warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer"
Signed-off-by: Venkatraman S
---
d
Are there any tools, software (free or proprietary but preferably
Linux-based) or hardware probes, that can read eMMC registers? If so,
would you be able to provide a link to it?
Thanks, I appreciate it!
--
J (James/Jay) Freyensee
Storage Technology Group
Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe
On 08/17/2011 07:11 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Hi Jay..
I didn't know the tool 'sparse'. i will check the tool for your advice.
Thank you a lot for your help.. :)
here, I'll provide it from a write-up I did within my department.
Unfortunately, finding documentation how to use it is pretty hard
On 08/16/2011 09:03 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Hi,
J Freyensee wrote:
On 08/12/2011 04:14 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Hi mailing.
This RFC patch is supported background operation(BKOPS).
And if you want to test this patch, must apply "[PATCH v3] mmc:
support HPI send command"
This patc
On 08/12/2011 04:14 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Hi mailing.
This RFC patch is supported background operation(BKOPS).
And if you want to test this patch, must apply "[PATCH v3] mmc: support HPI send
command"
This patch is based on Hanumath Prasad's patch "mmc: enable background operations
for emm
On 08/16/2011 02:26 AM, Shashidhar Hiremath wrote:
adding mmc mailing list
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Shashidhar Hiremath
wrote:
Hi All,
i am planning to come up with a module that would help for testing
the SD/MMC controller to see if supports the particular command.
For example ,T
In the driver block.c there is this line:
do {
struct mmc_command cmd;
u32 readcmd, writecmd, status = 0;
memset(&brq, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_blk_request));
brq.mrq.cmd = &brq.cmd;
brq.mrq.data = &brq.data;
On 07/19/2011 02:31 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
This adds support to inject data errors after a completed host transfer.
The mmc core will return error even though the host transfer is successful.
This simple fault injection proved to be very useful to test the
non-blocking error handling in the mmc_bl
On 07/19/2011 02:31 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
export symbols should_fail() and init_fault_attr_dentries() in order
to make modules use the fault injection functionality
Signed-off-by: Per Forlin
---
lib/fault-inject.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/f
I have a question concerning the following block of code in
~/drivers/mmc/card/block.c:
mmc_queue_bounce_pre(mq);
/*
* Before issuing a user req, host driver should
* wait for the BKOPS is done or just use HPI to
On 07/10/2011 12:21 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
Documentation about the background and the design of mmc non-blocking.
Host driver guidelines to minimize request preparation overhead.
Signed-off-by: Per Forlin
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap
---
ChangeLog:
v2: - Minor updates after proofreading comments from
On 07/05/2011 11:30 PM, Per Forlin wrote:
Documentation about the background and the design of mmc non-blocking.
Host driver guidelines to minimize request preparation overhead.
Resending this out on the linux-mmc list since that is what I am
subscribed to (and I had html format on so original
30 matches
Mail list logo
