On 27 June 2014 10:51, Romain Izard <[email protected]> wrote:
> As stated by the e⋅MMC 5.0 specification, a chip should not be rejected
> only because of the revision stated in the EXT_CSD_REV field of the
> EXT_CSD register.
>
> Remove the control on this value, the control of the CSD_STRUCTURE field
> should be sufficient to reject future incompatible changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Romain Izard <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <[email protected]>
Thanks! Applied for next.
Kind regards
Uffe
> ---
> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> index 1ab5f3a0af5b..ac9b8232133c 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> @@ -293,13 +293,12 @@ static int mmc_read_ext_csd(struct mmc_card *card, u8
> *ext_csd)
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * The EXT_CSD format is meant to be forward compatible. As long
> + * as CSD_STRUCTURE does not change, all values for EXT_CSD_REV
> + * are authorized, see JEDEC JESD84-B50 section B.8.
> + */
> card->ext_csd.rev = ext_csd[EXT_CSD_REV];
> - if (card->ext_csd.rev > 7) {
> - pr_err("%s: unrecognised EXT_CSD revision %d\n",
> - mmc_hostname(card->host), card->ext_csd.rev);
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> - }
>
> card->ext_csd.raw_sectors[0] = ext_csd[EXT_CSD_SEC_CNT + 0];
> card->ext_csd.raw_sectors[1] = ext_csd[EXT_CSD_SEC_CNT + 1];
> --
> 1.9.1
>
--
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
