> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:02 AM
> To: Andrew Morton
> Cc: Kyungmin Park; Madhusudhan Chikkature; LKML; [email protected]
> Subject: [PATCH V2 4/4] omap_hsmmc: Add erase capability
>
> From 101ce0365d6ce1abc8518f4776ea723038eeb5ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:33:13 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] omap_hsmmc: Add erase capability
>
> Disable the data (busy) timeout for erases and set the
> MMC_CAP_ERASE capability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> index b032828..5cbbe09 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
> #include <linux/mmc/core.h>
> +#include <linux/mmc/mmc.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/semaphore.h>
> #include <linux/gpio.h>
> @@ -78,6 +79,7 @@
> #define INT_EN_MASK 0x307F0033
> #define BWR_ENABLE (1 << 4)
> #define BRR_ENABLE (1 << 5)
> +#define DTO_ENABLE (1 << 20)
> #define INIT_STREAM (1 << 1)
> #define DP_SELECT (1 << 21)
> #define DDIR (1 << 4)
> @@ -523,7 +525,8 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_stop_clock(struct
> omap_hsmmc_host *host)
> dev_dbg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "MMC Clock is not stoped\n");
> }
>
> -static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host)
> +static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host,
> + struct mmc_command *cmd)
> {
> unsigned int irq_mask;
>
> @@ -532,6 +535,10 @@ static void omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(struct
> omap_hsmmc_host *host)
> else
> irq_mask = INT_EN_MASK;
>
> + /* Disable timeout for erases */
> + if (cmd->opcode == MMC_ERASE)
> + irq_mask &= ~DTO_ENABLE;
> +
I wonder is it safe to setup something based on the opcode?
When I first posted the driver I remember some comments on checks in the
driver for opcode were considered as layer violation.
But I don't see any other way of dealing with this. So it should be fine.
Regards,
Madhu
> OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, STAT, STAT_CLEAR);
> OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, ISE, irq_mask);
> OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, IE, irq_mask);
> @@ -782,7 +789,7 @@ omap_hsmmc_start_command(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host,
> struct mmc_command *cmd,
> mmc_hostname(host->mmc), cmd->opcode, cmd->arg);
> host->cmd = cmd;
>
> - omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(host);
> + omap_hsmmc_enable_irq(host, cmd);
>
> host->response_busy = 0;
> if (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_PRESENT) {
> @@ -2094,7 +2101,7 @@ static int __init omap_hsmmc_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> mmc->max_seg_size = mmc->max_req_size;
>
> mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_MMC_HIGHSPEED | MMC_CAP_SD_HIGHSPEED |
> - MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY;
> + MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY | MMC_CAP_ERASE;
>
> if (mmc_slot(host).wires >= 8)
> mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_8_BIT_DATA;
> --
> 1.6.3.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
