[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46922EAD.5050802@rfo.atmel.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:48:45 +0200
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com>
To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
CC: ARM Linux Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Victor <andrew@...people.com>,
Andreas Beier <mughat@...il.com>,
Hamish Guthrie <hamish@...digi.ch>,
Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>, wux@...dicorp.com,
Patrice Vilchez <patrice.vilchez@....atmel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: at91_mci: fix hanging and rework to match flowcharts
Pierre Ossman :
> Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Fixes hanging using multi block operations (seen during CMD25).
>> Follows closely the datasheet flowcharts.
>>
>> This piece of code handles better big file writing. I had to take care
>> of the notbusy signal during write (at91_mci_handle_cmdrdy function) and
>> to rearrange the AT91_MCI_ENDRX and AT91_MCI_RXBUFF flag usage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com>
>> ---
>
> Most of the patch looks ok. Do you want to wait for some more tests or should I
> chuck this into the imminent merge window?
*pong*
I think it is ok to put it into the merge window.
>> @@ -817,7 +834,11 @@ static int __init at91_mci_probe(struct
>> mmc->ops = &at91_mci_ops;
>> mmc->f_min = 375000;
>> - mmc->f_max = 25000000;
>> + if (cpu_is_at91sam9263())
>> + mmc->f_max = 50000000;
>> + else
>> + mmc->f_max = 25000000;
>> +
>> mmc->ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33 | MMC_VDD_33_34;
>> mmc->caps = MMC_CAP_BYTEBLOCK | MMC_CAP_MULTIWRITE;
>>
>
> This seems unrelated to the rest of the patch. Also, high-speed won't be enabled
> unless you set the appropriate caps (which should be checked against timing
> specifications, not just assigned and hope for the best).
True. I remove this chunk off the patch.
>> @@ -830,11 +851,11 @@ static int __init at91_mci_probe(struct
>> host->bus_mode = 0;
>> host->board = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> if (host->board->wire4) {
>> -#ifdef SUPPORT_4WIRE
>> - mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_4_BIT_DATA;
>> -#else
>> - printk("AT91 MMC: 4 wire bus mode not supported by this driver
>> - using 1 wire\n");
>> -#endif
>> + if (cpu_is_at91sam9260() || cpu_is_at91sam9263())
>> + mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_4_BIT_DATA;
>> + else
>> + printk("AT91 MMC: 4 wire bus mode not supported"
>> + " - using 1 wire\n");
>> }
>>
>> /*
>>
>
> This also looks unrelated.
Well, It is related to capacities of newer IPs that allow readproof and
writeproof features that I enable here :
+ if (cpu_is_at91sam9260() || cpu_is_at91sam9263())
+ mr |= AT91_MCI_RDPROOF | AT91_MCI_WRPROOF;
This allows to have a smooth data transmission internally (prevent
underruns) and so have full 4 wires capacity. So I think this is good
for having a full featured driver on all chips.
I resend a corrected patch now.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists