From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: merez@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] mmc: support BKOPS feature for eMMC Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <50065ACE.1030802@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:32435 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754529Ab2GRRNJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:13:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <50065ACE.1030802@samsung.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Cc: merez@codeaurora.org, Jaehoon Chung , linux-mmc , Chris Ball , Kyungmin Park , Hanumath Prasad , Per FORLIN , Sebastian Rasmussen , "Dong, Chuanxiao" , "svenkatr@ti.com" , Saugata Das , Konstantin Dorfman , Adrian Hunter , Ulf Hansson >>> +void mmc_start_bkops(struct mmc_card *card) >>> +{ >>> + int err; >>> + int timeout; >>> + u8 use_busy_signal; >>> + >>> + BUG_ON(!card); >>> + if (!card->ext_csd.bkops_en || !(card->host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_BKOPS)) >> >> Can you please explain why we need to have MMC_CAP2_BKOPS in addition to >> card->ext_csd.bkops_en? > We can remove the MMC_CAP2_BKOPS. but if someone didn't want to use the > bkops feature, > then can control with that capability. I don't think that the host can decide not to support BKOPs if it is enabled on the card. In such a case we might run into performance degradation or even non functionality of the card if it needs to perform BKOPs. Thanks, Maya -- Sent by consultant of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum