[U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc: fix capacity calculation with high capacity mmc

[Lei Wen]

Hi Wolfgang,

How about merge this patch? :-)

Best regards,
Lei

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Lei Wen <adrian.wenl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Reinhard ,
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Reinhard Meyer
> <u-boot at emk-elektronik.de> wrote:
>> Dear Lei Wen,
>>> According spec, high capacity mmc should be calculated by sector
>>> number multiply by sector size.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen at marvell.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mmc/mmc.c |    5 +++++
>>>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> index ea398a5..bb97171 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> @@ -441,6 +441,11 @@ int mmc_change_freq(struct mmc *mmc)
>>>       if (!ext_csd[185])
>>>               return 0;
>>>
>>> +     if (!IS_SD(mmc) && mmc->high_capacity) {
>>> +             mmc->capacity = ext_csd[212] | (ext_csd[213] << 8)
>>> +                     | (ext_csd[214] << 16) | (ext_csd[215] << 24);
>>> +             mmc->capacity *= mmc->read_bl_len;
>>> +     }
>>>       /* High Speed is set, there are two types: 52MHz and 26MHz */
>>>       if (cardtype & MMC_HS_52MHZ)
>>>               mmc->card_caps |= MMC_MODE_HS_52MHz | MMC_MODE_HS;
>>
>> Sorry to kick in again...
>>
>> a) this calculation is already done in line 717, and certainly does not belong
>> in a function called "mmc_change_freq".
>>
>> b) the current Top-Of-Tree code already calculates the capacity correctly:
>>
>> 32GB SDHC Card:
>>
>> Device: mci
>> Manufacturer ID: 3
>> OEM: 5344
>> Name: SD32G
>> Tran Speed: 25000000
>> Rd Block Len: 512
>> SD version 2.0
>> High Capacity: Yes
>> Capacity: 31914983424
>> Bus Width: 4-bit
>
> Yes, for sd card, the calculation method is right.
> But for mmc with high capacity, the calculation is wrong. You could
> try a mmc card with high capacity, like emmc card.
>>
>> c) is that now an incremental patch to the one you sent previously?
> It is a separate one. :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Lei
>