Maya Erez wrote:
> > Maya Erez wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon
> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > @@ -980,12 +988,67 @@ static int mmc_blk_err_check(struct
> >> mmc_card
> >> >> *card,
> >> >> >> > if (!brq->data.bytes_xfered)
> >> >> >> > return
> Maya Erez wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon
>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > @@ -980,12 +988,67 @@ static int mmc_blk_err_check(struct
>> mmc_card
>> >> *card,
>> >> >> > if (!brq->data.bytes_xfered)
>> >> >> > return MMC_BLK_RETRY;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
Maya Erez wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -943,7 +950,8 @@ static int mmc_blk_err_check(struct mmc_card
> >> *card,
> >> >> > * kind. If it was a write, we may have transitioned to
> * program mode, which we have to wait for it t
>> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon
>> wrote:
>> >> > @@ -943,7 +950,8 @@ static int mmc_blk_err_check(struct mmc_card
>> *card,
>> >> > * kind. If it was a write, we may have transitioned to
* program mode, which we have to wait for it to complete.
*/
>> >
> Maya Erez wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > + phys_segments += next->nr_phys_segments;
>> >> >> >> >> > + if (phys_segments > max_phys_segs) {
>> >> >> >> >> > + blk_requeue_request(q, next);
>> >> >> >> >> > + break;
>> >> >> >> >> >
Maya Erez wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > + phys_segments += next->nr_phys_segments;
> >> >> >> >> > + if (phys_segments > max_phys_segs) {
> >> >> >> >> > + blk_requeue_request(q, next);
> >> >> >> >> > + break;
> >> >> >> >> > +
Maya Erez wrote:
> >> >>> >> >> > + if (rqc)
> >> >>> >> >> > + reqs = mmc_blk_chk_packable(mq, rqc);
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It would be best to keep all the calls to blk_fetch_request in the
> >> same
> >> >>> location. Therefore, I suggest to move the call to
> >> mmc_blk_chk_packa
>> >> >> >> > + phys_segments += next->nr_phys_segments;
>> >> >> >> > + if (phys_segments > max_phys_segs) {
>> >> >> >> > + blk_requeue_request(q, next);
>> >> >> >> > + break;
>> >> >> >> > + }
>> >> >> >> I m
>> >>> >> >> > + if (rqc)
>> >>> >> >> > + reqs = mmc_blk_chk_packable(mq, rqc);
>> >>>
>> >>> It would be best to keep all the calls to blk_fetch_request in the
>> same
>> >>> location. Therefore, I suggest to move the call to
>> mmc_blk_chk_packable
>> >>> to
>> >>> mmc/card/q
Maya Erez wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon
> > wrote:
> >> Maya Erez wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> >>> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
> >>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct
S, Venkatraman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > Maya Erez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> >> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_q
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon
>> wrote:
>>> Maya Erez wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> S, Venkatraman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
wrote:
>> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, stru
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon
> wrote:
>> Maya Erez wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
>>> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
>>> >> req
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> Maya Erez wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
>> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
>> >> request *req)
Maya Erez wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
> wrote:
> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
> >> request *req)
>
> The function prepares the checkable list and not only check
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> S, Venkatraman wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon
wrote:
>> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
>> request *req)
The function prepares the checkable list and not only checks if packing is
possible, therefo
S, Venkatraman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > S, Venkatraman wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> >> > This patch supports packed command of eMMC4.5 device.
> >> > Several reads(or writes) can be grouped in packed command
> >> >
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> S, Venkatraman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
>> > This patch supports packed command of eMMC4.5 device.
>> > Several reads(or writes) can be grouped in packed command
>> > and all data of the individual comma
S, Venkatraman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> > This patch supports packed command of eMMC4.5 device.
> > Several reads(or writes) can be grouped in packed command
> > and all data of the individual commands can be sent in a
> > single transfer on the bus.
> >
> >
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> This patch supports packed command of eMMC4.5 device.
> Several reads(or writes) can be grouped in packed command
> and all data of the individual commands can be sent in a
> single transfer on the bus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon
> ---
On 2 November 2011 04:03, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> This patch supports packed command of eMMC4.5 device.
> Several reads(or writes) can be grouped in packed command
> and all data of the individual commands can be sent in a
> single transfer on the bus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon
> ---
> dri
21 matches
Mail list logo
