From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::442; helo=mail-wr1-x442.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wr1-x442.google.com (mail-wr1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8209B211B738F for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x442.google.com with SMTP id t27so2842001wra.6 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:04:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UkagNXSPbOSOZrPDP7QQ1jxB4KzJAh2Yec0huvLYheA=; b=LG9gz7c6BLw1xA1ugbd64pgPtZlkxjKnwohdkpHDcGpd235I261bq5M8Jpgop6Hpbm 84hyLTWG0WleDcUkYQI/QUmEox+Ck/Urs2YqEru8M8EC0nSW//jMz58BajRDW0GDXrBS dWXXw7pEjzwYwFqzsn0KJXiP8f/AQ6uiOg6mU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UkagNXSPbOSOZrPDP7QQ1jxB4KzJAh2Yec0huvLYheA=; b=NqWABiV/b6TKv3E70bw6z0JfFvtxWEsBovEwDINu+YOvhduRtyNFYAm04Xi6h/mTi9 PURDlK2lHiU+X63ASBv07SGD8AWGoGUekdLBxlu3GZHsRUTGLSidud4UxtkDXtXD8RtA P57HBC4Eps97K+j30D2TFgpviBSRCpjyLnPboXgopk653VSZLdwsJ9sYD9i3DS2NaqXE NzbPhs6By8kuSEKf4VSVvevv9rbyTSaq9YMcZnhBPHB/z2RULe58bJdtaDOZ7WLiqY7H 6E4tdXYqYV8lqRy3BSTY5cJlPqD6BGLRH3IFhDmAZetde5zUWsgsdhi/KglfnpLbq+9s DJJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeW1B4itiFzAuvkIy/T07/CsMLDXYaQKbygXH8lbxsvii4Yg3N3 FFOxan9/mdUKjV/ZBCK5LKYFLg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4SexFSUzXhhn5NzI82F3KAfIBkFkx6cDHDO69gUb9JCSTY7yf+nHY6QY/Aw0tFj4hLmWvA2g== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6487:: with SMTP id r7mr3257450wru.263.1548255853544; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:04:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm61579957wmd.15.2019.01.23.07.04.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:04:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:04:10 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: Meenakshi Aggarwal Cc: Jun Nie , Haojian Zhuang , "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Message-ID: <20190123150410.emsih5kfrdiksma4@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1547644896-7721-1-git-send-email-meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com> <20190117112338.llv64ylvwywtezof@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [PATCH] SD/eMMC : Fix Command Argument for SD/eMMC R/W operation. X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:04:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Well, if we don't hear back, I can just commit it anyway before the end of the week. One question/comment inline below: On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:29:50AM +0000, Meenakshi Aggarwal wrote: > Hi Jun, Haojian, > > Please review the patch. > > Thanks, > Meenakshi > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leif Lindholm > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 4:54 PM > > To: Meenakshi Aggarwal > > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Jun Nie > > ; Haojian Zhuang > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] SD/eMMC : Fix Command Argument for SD/eMMC R/W > > operation. > > > > Jun, Haojian - any comments? > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 06:51:36PM +0530, Meenakshi Aggarwal wrote: > > > Issue : SD read failure for high capacity cards e.g. 64 GB i Reason : > > > Command argument value exceeds 32 bit for block number 0x3787FFF and > > > cant be fit into 32 bit wide SD host controller register. > > > > > > Fix : > > > AccessMode bits [29:30] of OCR is a valid definition to calculate data > > > address for eMMC cards. > > > > > > For SD cards, data address is calculated on the basis of card capacity > > > status bit[30] of OCR. > > > > > > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > > > Signed-off-by: Meenakshi Aggarwal > > > --- > > > EmbeddedPkg/Universal/MmcDxe/MmcBlockIo.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/EmbeddedPkg/Universal/MmcDxe/MmcBlockIo.c > > > b/EmbeddedPkg/Universal/MmcDxe/MmcBlockIo.c > > > index a2b9232..625a59e 100644 > > > --- a/EmbeddedPkg/Universal/MmcDxe/MmcBlockIo.c > > > +++ b/EmbeddedPkg/Universal/MmcDxe/MmcBlockIo.c > > > @@ -148,12 +148,21 @@ MmcTransferBlock ( > > > MmcHostInstance = MMC_HOST_INSTANCE_FROM_BLOCK_IO_THIS (This); > > > MmcHost = MmcHostInstance->MmcHost; > > > > > > - //Set command argument based on the card access mode (Byte mode or > > > Block mode) > > > - if ((MmcHostInstance->CardInfo.OCRData.AccessMode & > > MMC_OCR_ACCESS_MASK) == > > > - MMC_OCR_ACCESS_SECTOR) { > > > - CmdArg = Lba; > > > + if (MmcHostInstance->CardInfo.CardType != EMMC_CARD) { > > > + //Set command argument based on the card capacity (SDSC or SDXC/SDHC) > > > + if (MmcHostInstance->CardInfo.OCRData.AccessMode & BIT1) { What is BIT1? Can we add a #define for it? (The comment _nearly_ but not quite explains it to me.) / Leif > > > + CmdArg = Lba; > > > + } else { > > > + CmdArg = Lba * This->Media->BlockSize; > > > + } > > > } else { > > > - CmdArg = Lba * This->Media->BlockSize; > > > + //Set command argument based on the card access mode (Byte mode or > > Block mode) > > > + if ((MmcHostInstance->CardInfo.OCRData.AccessMode & > > MMC_OCR_ACCESS_MASK) == > > > + MMC_OCR_ACCESS_SECTOR) { > > > + CmdArg = Lba; > > > + } else { > > > + CmdArg = Lba * This->Media->BlockSize; > > > + } > > > } > > > > > > Status = MmcHost->SendCommand (MmcHost, Cmd, CmdArg); > > > -- > > > 1.9.1 > > >