Hi Simon,
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 23:01, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Loic,
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:24, Loic Poulain loic.poulain@linaro.org wrote:
The default erase command applies on erase group unit, and simply round down to erase group size. When the start block is not aligned to erase group size (e.g. erasing partition) it causes unwanted erasing of the previous blocks, part of the same erase group (e.g. owned by other logical partition, or by the partition table itself).
To prevent this issue, a simple solution is to use TRIM as argument of the Erase command, which is usually supported with eMMC > 4.0, and allow to apply erase operation to write blocks instead of erase group
Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain loic.poulain@linaro.org
v2: Add mmc unit test change to the series
drivers/mmc/mmc_write.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Please see below
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc_write.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc_write.c index 5b7aeeb012..a6f93380dd 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc_write.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc_write.c @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ #include <linux/math64.h> #include "mmc_private.h"
-static ulong mmc_erase_t(struct mmc *mmc, ulong start, lbaint_t blkcnt) +static ulong mmc_erase_t(struct mmc *mmc, ulong start, lbaint_t blkcnt, u32 args) { struct mmc_cmd cmd; ulong end; @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static ulong mmc_erase_t(struct mmc *mmc, ulong start, lbaint_t blkcnt) goto err_out;
cmd.cmdidx = MMC_CMD_ERASE;
cmd.cmdarg = MMC_ERASE_ARG;
cmd.cmdarg = args ? args : MMC_ERASE_ARG; cmd.resp_type = MMC_RSP_R1b; err = mmc_send_cmd(mmc, &cmd, NULL);@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ ulong mmc_berase(struct blk_desc *block_dev, lbaint_t start, lbaint_t blkcnt) #endif int dev_num = block_dev->devnum; int err = 0;
u32 start_rem, blkcnt_rem;
u32 start_rem, blkcnt_rem, erase_args = 0; struct mmc *mmc = find_mmc_device(dev_num); lbaint_t blk = 0, blk_r = 0; int timeout_ms = 1000;@@ -97,13 +97,25 @@ ulong mmc_berase(struct blk_desc *block_dev, lbaint_t start, lbaint_t blkcnt) */ err = div_u64_rem(start, mmc->erase_grp_size, &start_rem); err = div_u64_rem(blkcnt, mmc->erase_grp_size, &blkcnt_rem);
if (start_rem || blkcnt_rem)printf("\n\nCaution! Your devices Erase group is 0x%x\n""The erase range would be change to ""0x" LBAF "~0x" LBAF "\n\n",mmc->erase_grp_size, start & ~(mmc->erase_grp_size - 1),((start + blkcnt + mmc->erase_grp_size - 1)& ~(mmc->erase_grp_size - 1)) - 1);
if (start_rem || blkcnt_rem) {if (mmc->can_trim) {/* Trim function applies the erase operation to write* blocks instead of erase groups.*/erase_args = MMC_TRIM_ARG;} else {/* The card ignores all LSB's below the erase group* size, rounding down the addess to a erase group* boundary.*/printf("\n\nCaution! Your devices Erase group is 0x%x\n""The erase range would be change to ""0x" LBAF "~0x" LBAF "\n\n",mmc->erase_grp_size, start & ~(mmc->erase_grp_size - 1),((start + blkcnt + mmc->erase_grp_size - 1)& ~(mmc->erase_grp_size - 1)) - 1);Should this return an error, or just go ahead?
It would indeed make sense to return an error since mmc_erase does not perform what we expect. Now, since this behavior exists for a while, we may also want to keep it for legacy, though it should be a corner case...
Regards, Loic