lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 02/26] mmc: core: Prepare to support SD UHS-II cards
From
Le 19/10/2022 à 13:06, Victor Shih a écrit :
> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>
> Updates in V4:
> - Re-based, updated a comment and removed white-space.
> - Moved MMC_VQMMC2_VOLTAGE_180 into a later patch in the series.
>
> Update in previous version:
> The SD UHS-II interface was introduced to the SD spec v4.00 several years
> ago. The interface is fundamentally different from an electrical and a
> protocol point of view, comparing to the legacy SD interface.
>
> However, the legacy SD protocol is supported through a specific transport
> layer (SD-TRAN) defined in the UHS-II addendum of the spec. This allows the
> SD card to be managed in a very similar way as a legacy SD card, hence a
> lot of code can be re-used to support these new types of cards through the
> mmc subsystem.
>
> Moreover, an SD card that supports the UHS-II interface shall also be
> backwards compatible with the legacy SD interface, which allows a UHS-II
> card to be inserted into a legacy slot. As a matter of fact, this is
> already supported by mmc subsystem as of today.
>
> To prepare to add support for UHS-II, this change puts the basic foundation
> in the mmc core in place, allowing it to be more easily reviewed before
> subsequent changes implements the actual support.
>
> Basically, the approach here adds a new UHS-II bus_ops type and adds a
> separate initialization path for the UHS-II card. The intent is to avoid us
> from sprinkling the legacy initialization path, but also to simplify
> implementation of the UHS-II specific bits.
>
> At this point, there is only one new host ops added to manage the various
> ios settings needed for UHS-II. Additional host ops that are needed, are
> being added from subsequent changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> ---

[]

> +static int sd_uhs2_attach(struct mmc_host *host)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + err = sd_uhs2_power_up(host);
> + if (err)
> + goto err;
> +
> + err = sd_uhs2_phy_init(host);
> + if (err)
> + goto err;
> +
> + err = sd_uhs2_init_card(host);
> + if (err)
> + goto err;
> +
> + mmc_attach_bus(host, &sd_uhs2_ops);
> +
> + mmc_release_host(host);
> +
> + err = mmc_add_card(host->card);
> + if (err)
> + goto remove_card;
> +
> + mmc_claim_host(host);
> + return 0;
> +
> +remove_card:
> + mmc_remove_card(host->card);

Hi,

If we arrive here, mmc_add_card() has failed.
is it correct to call mmc_remove_card() in such a case?

> + host->card = NULL;
> + mmc_claim_host(host);
> + mmc_detach_bus(host);
> +err:
> + sd_uhs2_power_off(host);

If sd_uhs2_power_up() fails, we arrive here.
Is its correct to call sd_uhs2_power_off() in such a case, or should we
return directly if sd_uhs2_power_up() fails?

CJ

> + return err;
> +}
> +

[]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-04 13:17    [W:0.298 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site