[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070809164511.6f40fa7b@poseidon.drzeus.cx>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:45:11 +0200
From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com>
Cc: "??" <wux@...dicorp.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ARM Linux Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: at91_mci: add multiwrite cap
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:09:19 +0200
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com> wrote:
>
> Ok thank you : it was the point.
>
> Results : in brief :
> - there is work to be done ;-)
> - multiwrite test result is : OK
>
I'm starting to get the feeling that writing this test driver was a
good idea. :)
> I had to modify the mmc_test to workaround the driver being stuck.
> I attach the patch so you can figure out the testcase I ran :
>
> diff -u b/drivers/mmc/card/mmc_test.c b/drivers/mmc/card/mmc_test.c
> --- b/drivers/mmc/card/mmc_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/mmc_test.c
> @@ -149,7 +149,8 @@
> printk(KERN_INFO "%s: Testing reading power of two block
> sizes...\n", mmc_hostname(card->host));
>
> - for (i = 1;i <= 512;i <<= 1) {
> +// for (i = 1;i <= 512;i <<= 1) {
> + for (i = 512;i <= 512;i <<= 2) { /*must have size%4 == 0*/
> memset(&mrq, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_request));
>
> mrq.cmd = &cmd;
These "fixes" shouldn't be needed with the recent patch by Marc Pignat.
>
> And here is the output :
>
> With a SD card :
> root@...1sam9263ek:~$ mmc0: card is read-write
> mmc0: new SD card at address 0002
> mmc0: About to test mmc subsystem
> mmc0: Testing writing power of two block sizes...
> .<7>mmc0: starting CMD16 arg 00000200 flags 00000015
>
> mmc0: Result: OK
> mmc0: Testing reading power of two block sizes...
> mmc0: Result: OK
> mmc0: Testing correct bytes_xfered for a single block...
> mmc0: Result: OK
> mmc0: Testing correct bytes_xfered for multiple blocks...
> mmc0: Result: OK
This looks ok (although this test doesn't verify the more exotic cases
of updating bytes_xfered).
> I do not know if the OOps is due to a bad behavior of the driver
> during the wait for busy test...
>
I don't suppose you could do a bit more digging? I'm not getting that
crash here.
> And with a MMC : quite the same results but with :
>
> mmc0: Testing correct bytes_xfered for a single block...
> mmc0: Result: FAIL
>
This is very odd. Could you test some more MMC and SD cards and see if
this is just a fluke? This test shouldn't be card dependent.
Rgds
Pierre
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists