Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: core: Optimize the mmc erase size alignment | From | Shawn Lin <> | Date | Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:59:22 +0800 |
| |
On 2016/7/27 15:17, Baolin Wang wrote: > Before issuing mmc_erase() function, users always have checked if it can > erase with mmc_can_erase/trim/discard() function, thus remove the redundant > erase checking in mmc_erase() function. > > This patch also optimizes the erase start/end sector alignment with > round_up()/round_down() function, when erase command is MMC_ERASE_ARG. > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> > --- > Changes since v1: > - Add the alignment if card->erase_size is not power of 2. > --- > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > index b4c08d1a..303a917 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > @@ -2195,6 +2195,51 @@ out: > return err; > } > > +static unsigned int mmc_align_erase_size(struct mmc_card *card, > + unsigned int *from, > + unsigned int *to, > + unsigned int nr) > +{ > + unsigned int from_new = *from, nr_new = nr, rem; > + > + if (is_power_of_2(card->erase_size)) { > + unsigned int temp = from_new; > + > + from_new = round_up(temp, card->erase_size); > + rem = from_new - temp; > + > + if (nr_new > rem) > + nr_new -= rem; > + else > + return 0; > + > + nr_new = round_down(nr_new, card->erase_size); > + } else { > + rem = from_new % card->erase_size; > + if (rem) { > + rem = card->erase_size - rem; > + from_new += rem; > + if (nr_new > rem) > + nr_new -= rem; > + else > + return 0; > + } > + > + rem = nr_new % card->erase_size; > + if (rem) > + nr_new -= rem; > + } > + > + if (nr_new == 0) > + return 0; > + > + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */ > + *to = from_new + nr_new - 1; > + *from = from_new; > + > + return nr_new; > +} > + > /** > * mmc_erase - erase sectors. > * @card: card to erase > @@ -2210,13 +2255,6 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from, unsigned int nr, > unsigned int rem, to = from + nr; > int err; > > - if (!(card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_ERASE) || > - !(card->csd.cmdclass & CCC_ERASE))
Why remove the check , "!(card->csd.cmdclass & CCC_ERASE))"?
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; > - > - if (!card->erase_size) > - return -EOPNOTSUPP; > - > if (mmc_card_sd(card) && arg != MMC_ERASE_ARG) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > @@ -2234,31 +2272,11 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int from, unsigned int nr, > } > > if (arg == MMC_ERASE_ARG) { > - rem = from % card->erase_size; > - if (rem) { > - rem = card->erase_size - rem; > - from += rem; > - if (nr > rem) > - nr -= rem; > - else > - return 0; > - } > - rem = nr % card->erase_size; > - if (rem) > - nr -= rem; > + rem = mmc_align_erase_size(card, &from, &to, nr); > + if (rem == 0) > + return 0; > } > > - if (nr == 0) > - return 0; > - > - to = from + nr; > - > - if (to <= from) > - return -EINVAL; > - > - /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */ > - to -= 1; > - > /* > * Special case where only one erase-group fits in the timeout budget: > * If the region crosses an erase-group boundary on this particular >
-- Best Regards Shawn Lin
| |