lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [External] : Re: [PATCH v2] mmc-utils: Add eMMC erase command support
From
Date
OK Ulf. I'll make the changes and resubmit.
Thanks
Kimito

On 3/31/2021 3:30 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 23:36, <kimito.sakata@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/30/2021 6:39 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 17:45, Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Kimito Sakata <kimito.sakata@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> we have been using this erase feature for a while, but it is
>>>> still not merged into the upstream mmc-utils. Especially, for
>>>> the customer, every time when they update the mmc-utils, they
>>>> should re-install this patch again, let's try to make this
>>>> erase command upstreamed in the mmc-utils.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Gibbons <kenny.gibbons@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>> Please help us review this mmc-utils patch, and if agree, it is
>>>> possible to make it merged in the official mmc-utils.
>>>>
>>>> Changelog:
>>>>
>>>> V1--V2:
>>>> 1. refactor Kimito's original patch
>>>> 2. change to use MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD
>>>> 3. add checkup if eMMC devie supports secure erase/trim
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> mmc.c | 8 ++++
>>>> mmc.h | 13 +++++-
>>>> mmc_cmds.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> mmc_cmds.h | 1 +
>>>> 4 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mmc.c b/mmc.c
>>>> index 50c9c9e..cb29a65 100644
>>>> --- a/mmc.c
>>>> +++ b/mmc.c
>>>> @@ -215,6 +215,14 @@ static struct Command commands[] = {
>>>> "Run Field Firmware Update with <image name> on <device>.\n",
>>>> NULL
>>>> },
>>>> + { do_erase, -4,
>>>> + "erase", "<type> " "<start address> " "<end address> " "<device>\n"
>>>> + "Send Erase CMD38 with specific argument to the <device>\n\n"
>>>> + "NOTE!: This will delete all user data in the specified region of the device\n"
>>>> + "<type> must be: legacy | discard | secure-erase | "
>>>> + "secure-trim1 | secure-trim2 | trim \n",
>>>> + NULL
>>>> + },
>>>> { 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mmc.h b/mmc.h
>>>> index 648fb26..90b7fb5 100644
>>>> --- a/mmc.h
>>>> +++ b/mmc.h
>>>> @@ -34,7 +34,15 @@
>>>> #define MMC_SET_WRITE_PROT 28 /* ac [31:0] data addr R1b */
>>>> #define MMC_CLEAR_WRITE_PROT 29 /* ac [31:0] data addr R1b */
>>>> #define MMC_SEND_WRITE_PROT_TYPE 31 /* ac [31:0] data addr R1 */
>>>> -
>>>> +#define MMC_ERASE_GROUP_START 35 /* ac [31:0] data addr R1 */
>>>> +#define MMC_ERASE_GROUP_END 36 /* ac [31:0] data addr R1 */
>>>> +#define MMC_ERASE 38 /* ac [31] Secure request
>>>> + [30:16] set to 0
>>>> + [15] Force Garbage Collect request
>>>> + [14:2] set to 0
>>>> + [1] Discard Enable
>>>> + [0] Identify Write Blocks for
>>>> + Erase (or TRIM Enable) R1b */
>>>> /*
>>>> * EXT_CSD fields
>>>> */
>>>> @@ -61,6 +69,7 @@
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_CACHE_SIZE_2 251
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_CACHE_SIZE_1 250
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_CACHE_SIZE_0 249
>>>> +#define EXT_CSD_SEC_FEATURE_SUPPORT 231
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_BOOT_INFO 228 /* R/W */
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_HC_ERASE_GRP_SIZE 224
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_HC_WP_GRP_SIZE 221
>>>> @@ -177,6 +186,8 @@
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_REV_V4_2 2
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_REV_V4_1 1
>>>> #define EXT_CSD_REV_V4_0 0
>>>> +#define EXT_CSD_SEC_GB_CL_EN (1<<4)
>>>> +#define EXT_CSD_SEC_ER_EN (1<<0)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /* From kernel linux/mmc/core.h */
>>>> diff --git a/mmc_cmds.c b/mmc_cmds.c
>>>> index fb37189..17986e3 100644
>>>> --- a/mmc_cmds.c
>>>> +++ b/mmc_cmds.c
>>>> @@ -2435,6 +2435,141 @@ int do_cache_dis(int nargs, char **argv)
>>>> return do_cache_ctrl(0, nargs, argv);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int erase(int dev_fd, __u32 argin, __u32 start, __u32 end)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#ifndef MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD
>>> In kernel v4.4 we added the multi cmd support, which is quite some
>>> time ago. So, I think it's time to drop these ifdef hackary from the
>>> userland tool. At least, we shouldn't need it for new kinds of
>>> features that we add.
>> Ulf
>> Do you want us to take out the MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD ifdef and resubmit?
> Yes, please.
>
> Moreover, we should probably also remove all the other #ifndef
> MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD hacks that we currently have in the code. But that's
> a separate patch.
>
>> Kimito
>>
>>>> + fprintf(stderr, "mmc-utils has been compiled without MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD"
>>>> + " support, needed by erase.\n");
>>>> + return -ENOTSUP;
>>>> +#else
>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>> + struct mmc_ioc_multi_cmd *multi_cmd;
>>>> +
>>> [...]
> Kind regards
> Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-31 16:32    [W:0.084 / U:1.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site