Re: [PATCH v5 06/12] mmc: sdhci-xenon: Add Marvell Xenon SDHC core functionality

Ulf Hansson
2017-01-30T10:15:20Z

On 30 January 2017 at 10:40, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/17 11:10, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 28 January 2017 at 09:16, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2017 5:12 p.m., Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26 January 2017 at 13:39, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/01/17 12:50, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11 January 2017 at 18:19, Gregory CLEMENT
>>>>>> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + priv->init_card_type = MMC_TYPE_MMC;
>>>>>>> + mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Force to clear BUS_TEST to
>>>>>>> + * skip bus_test_pre and bus_test_post
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + mmc->caps &= ~MMC_CAP_BUS_WIDTH_TEST;
>>>>>>> + mmc->caps2 |= MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This cap is a bit strange. It was added several years ago by Adrian
>>>>>> Hunter, but I am wondering about the reason to why it's needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ relates to EXT-CSD ERASE_GROUP_DEF.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was added to enable people to choose whether they wanted a
>>>>> large
>>>>> or small erase granularity. That probably doesn't matter if the card
>>>>> supports TRIM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh, the erase/trim/discard code in the mmc core is really hairy. :-)
>>>>
>>>> In mmc_calc_max_discard() the following code/comment exists:
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Without erase_group_def set, MMC erase timeout depends on clock
>>>> * frequence which can change. In that case, the best choice is
>>>> * just the preferred erase size.
>>>> */
>>>> if (mmc_card_mmc(card) && !(card->ext_csd.erase_group_def & 1))
>>>> return card->pref_erase;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This makes me wonder.
>>>>
>>>> So, when we haven't enabled the high capacity erase groups in the
>>>> EXT_CSD register (ext_csd.erase_group_def), we will use the pref_erase
>>>> size.
>>>>
>>>> In the other case, as when having MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ set (which will
>>>> set ext_csd.erase_group_def), we will instead do some calculations
>>>> to find out the max discards.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that these calculations doesn't matter much - or are
>>>> you saying that we always want to do them?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I was saying that if you have TRIM then TRIM is preferred to ERASE so
>>> the erase group size does not come into play when discarding, since ERASE
>>> granularity is erase groups whereas TRIM granularity is sectors.
>>
>> Right. Thanks for clarifying.
>>
>>>
>>> However ERASE_GROUP_DEF also affects the size of write protect groups.
>>
>> In either case.
>>
>> What do you think of removing MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ? I don't like these
>> kind of soft polices, it's better if we can decide on a common
>> behaviour - whatever that is.
>
> Changing the value of ERASE_GROUP_DEF could be a problem, for example the
> spec. says:
>
> "Similarly if the host set ERASE_GROUP_DEF bit for a device that the default
> write protect was already set in some of the area in the previous power
> cycle, then the device may show unknown behavior when host issue write
> or erase commands to the device. In application, it is mandatory for host to
> use same ERASE GROUP DEF value to the device all the time."
>
> Whether or not there is anyone that would actually be affected is hard to know.

Okay. I am going to submit a patch that just removes the behaviour for
MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ and the cap itself.

The cap isn't particular widely used anyway. Let's see what people think of it.

Thanks a lot for you input!

Kind regards
Uffe