On 20/07/12 14:58, [email protected] wrote: > > On Thu, July 19, 2012 8:12 am, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> +void mmc_start_bkops(struct mmc_card *card, bool from_exception) >> +{ >> + int err; >> + int timeout; >> + bool use_busy_signal; >> + >> + BUG_ON(!card); >> + >> + if (!card->ext_csd.bkops_en || mmc_card_doing_bkops(card) || >> + !(card->host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_BKOPS)) >> + return; > To my opinion, the host cannot decide not to support BKOPs if it is > enabled by the card. In such a case, the card will expect the host to > start the BKOPs and may get into performance degradation. > I think the MMC_CAP2_BKOPS should be removed. > Does everyone agree or do I miss something?
I agree. The spec says of bkops_en "Host is indicating that it shall periodically write to BKOPS_START field to manually start background operations." -- 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
