[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <363fc241-8220-2706-778c-706aec076d49@rock-chips.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:34:43 +0800
From: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc: shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, dianders@...omium.org,
heiko@...ech.de, david@...tonic.nl, hdegoede@...hat.com,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
broonie@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: core: Optimize the mmc erase size alignment
Hi Baolin,
On 2016/8/31 17:32, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Before issuing mmc_erase() function, users always have checked if it can
> erase with mmc_can_erase/trim/discard() function, thus remove the redundant
> erase checking in mmc_erase() function.
>
> This patch also optimizes the erase start/end sector alignment with
It implies you could split this patch into two for dealing with diff
things. :) Otherwise, you could add my test tag,
Tested-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
> round_up()/round_down() function, when erase command is MMC_ERASE_ARG.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - Add nr checking and other optimization in mmc_erase() function.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Add the alignment if card->erase_size is not power of 2.
> ---
> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index e55cde6..52156d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -2202,6 +2202,51 @@ out:
> return err;
> }
>
> +static unsigned int mmc_align_erase_size(struct mmc_card *card,
> + unsigned int *from,
> + unsigned int *to,
> + unsigned int nr)
> +{
> + unsigned int from_new = *from, nr_new = nr, rem;
> +
> + if (is_power_of_2(card->erase_size)) {
> + unsigned int temp = from_new;
> +
> + from_new = round_up(temp, card->erase_size);
> + rem = from_new - temp;
> +
> + if (nr_new > rem)
> + nr_new -= rem;
> + else
> + return 0;
> +
> + nr_new = round_down(nr_new, card->erase_size);
> + } else {
> + rem = from_new % card->erase_size;
> + if (rem) {
> + rem = card->erase_size - rem;
> + from_new += rem;
> + if (nr_new > rem)
> + nr_new -= rem;
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + rem = nr_new % card->erase_size;
> + if (rem)
> + nr_new -= rem;
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_new == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */
> + *to = from_new + nr_new - 1;
> + *from = from_new;
> +
> + return nr_new;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * mmc_erase - erase sectors.
> * @card: card to erase
> @@ -2217,13 +2262,6 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from, unsigned int nr,
> unsigned int rem, to = from + nr;
> int err;
>
> - if (!(card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_ERASE) ||
> - !(card->csd.cmdclass & CCC_ERASE))
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> - if (!card->erase_size)
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> if (mmc_card_sd(card) && arg != MMC_ERASE_ARG)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> @@ -2240,31 +2278,17 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from, unsigned int nr,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (arg == MMC_ERASE_ARG) {
> - rem = from % card->erase_size;
> - if (rem) {
> - rem = card->erase_size - rem;
> - from += rem;
> - if (nr > rem)
> - nr -= rem;
> - else
> - return 0;
> - }
> - rem = nr % card->erase_size;
> - if (rem)
> - nr -= rem;
> - }
> -
> if (nr == 0)
> return 0;
>
> - to = from + nr;
> -
> - if (to <= from)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */
> - to -= 1;
> + if (arg == MMC_ERASE_ARG) {
> + nr = mmc_align_erase_size(card, &from, &to, nr);
> + if (nr == 0)
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */
> + to -= 1;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Special case where only one erase-group fits in the timeout budget:
>
--
Best Regards
Shawn Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists