On 16 February 2017 at 09:37, Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>> >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to
>> >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp has one of the
>> >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I
>> >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it
>> >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware.
>> >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is
>> >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request.
>> >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ.
>> >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the
>> >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc).
>> >> Does that work for you?
>> > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I
>> > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the
>> > core. We roughly need something like this:
>> > if (stop.resp & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED)
>> > stop.error = -EIO;
>> > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we
>> > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an
>> > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in
>> > mmc_blk_err_check().
>> > Do you get what I mean?
>> I get it - and yes you have a point.
>> By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and
>> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't
> What do you mean with clean-up here? I would have just added the helper
...perhaps some re-factoring as the functions do lots of stuff.
> function checking R1 error bits and setting stop.error accordingly.
That's ok, I don't require you to do the clean up, but it would be nice. :-)
>> want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case.
>> So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to),
>> we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be
> I agree. That's what I meant with "checking if stop.resp has one of
> the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx',
> too)?". I think these are the candidates we care about.