From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx>
To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Purpose of MMC_DATA_MULTI?
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:49:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43E1D5BF.5000807@drzeus.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060202093656.GA5034@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:37:12AM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>> Russell King wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:40:26AM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I noticed that a new transfer flag was recently added to the MMC layer
>>>> without any immediate users, the MMC_DATA_MULTI flag. I'm guessing the
>>>> purpose of the flag is to indicate the difference between
>>>> MMC_READ_SINGLE_BLOCK and MMC_READ_MULTIPLE_BLOCKS with just one block.
>>>> If so, then that should probably be mentioned in a comment somewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There are hosts out there (Atmel AT91-based) which need to know if the
>>> transfer is going to be multiple block. Rather than have them test
>>> the op-code (which is what they're already doing), we provide a flag
>>> instead.
>>>
>> As far as the hardware is concerned there are two "multi-block" transfers:
>>
>> * Multiple, back-to-back blocks.
>> * One or more blocks that need to be terminated by some form of stop
>> command.
>>
>> The first can be identified by checking the number of blocks in the
>> request, the latter is harder to identify since it's a protocol semantic
>> (it could be just one block, but still need a stop). Does MMC_DATA_MULTI
>> indicate the latter, former or both?
>>
>
> In short, it's defined to be whatever AT91_MCI_TRTYP_MULTIPLE means in
> the AT91RM9200 MMC host driver, which appears to be set for any of the
> multiple block commands. They currently are doing:
>
>
That's a bit fuzzy and bound to give problems. Why not settle for the
first case and change their code to check the block count in the
request? Less flags should be a good thing. And if that proves to be
insufficient we should do a more thorough investigation once we have an
actual failure case.
> and using that as a lookup table by command for the value to put into
> the command register. I want to eliminate that, and not passing the
> MULTI flag prevents elimination of this table.
>
>
Seems to be a common theme in the more recent drivers. Don't they teach
people proper layering in the schools anymore? :)
Rgds
Pierre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-02 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-01 6:40 Purpose of MMC_DATA_MULTI? Pierre Ossman
2006-02-01 9:29 ` Russell King
2006-02-01 9:37 ` Pierre Ossman
2006-02-02 9:36 ` Russell King
2006-02-02 9:49 ` Pierre Ossman [this message]
2006-02-02 9:59 ` Russell King
2006-02-02 15:00 ` Pierre Ossman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43E1D5BF.5000807@drzeus.cx \
--to=drzeus-list@drzeus.cx \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox