Hi Ulf,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> >
> >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to
> >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the
> >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I
> >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it
> >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware.
> >>
> >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is
> >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request.
> >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ.
> >>
> >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the
> >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc).
> >>
> >> Does that work for you?
> >
> > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I
> > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the
> > core. We roughly need something like this:
> >
> >         if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED)
> >                 stop.error = -EIO;
> >
> > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we
> > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an
> > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in
> > mmc_blk_err_check().
> >
> > Do you get what I mean?
> 
> I get it - and yes you have a point.

Cool.

> By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and
> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't

What do you mean with clean-up here? I would have just added the helper
function checking R1 error bits and setting stop.error accordingly.

> want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case.
> 
> So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to),
> we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be
> consistent.

I agree. That's what I meant with "checking if stop.resp[0] has one of
the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx',
too)?". I think these are the candidates we care about.

Thanks,

   Wolfram