On 02.09.25 19:48, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 11:37 AM Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com
> <mailto:jan.kis...@siemens.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 02.09.25 19:30, Warner Losh wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 11:22 AM Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com
>     <mailto:i...@bsdimp.com>
>     > <mailto:i...@bsdimp.com <mailto:i...@bsdimp.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 11:18 AM Jan Kiszka
>     <jan.kis...@siemens.com <mailto:jan.kis...@siemens.com>
>     >     <mailto:jan.kis...@siemens.com
>     <mailto:jan.kis...@siemens.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >         On 02.09.25 19:07, Warner Losh wrote:
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >         > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 10:49 AM Jan Lübbe
>     <j...@pengutronix.de <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de>
>     >         <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de>>
>     >         > <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de>
>     <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de <mailto:j...@pengutronix.de>>>> wrote:
>     >         >
>     >         >     On Tue, 2025-09-02 at 18:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>     >         >     > > > I expect us to be safe and able to deal with non-
>     >         pow2 regions
>     >         >     if we use
>     >         >     > > > QEMUSGList from the "system/dma.h" API. But
>     this is
>     >         a rework
>     >         >     nobody had
>     >         >     > > > time to do so far.
>     >         >     > >
>     >         >     > > We have to tell two things apart: partitions
>     sizes on
>     >         the one
>     >         >     side and
>     >         >     > > backing storage sizes. The partitions sizes are
>     (to my
>     >         reading)
>     >         >     clearly
>     >         >     > > defined in the spec, and the user partition (alone!)
>     >         has to be
>     >         >     power of
>     >         >     > > 2. The boot and RPMB partitions are multiples of
>     128K.
>     >         The sum
>     >         >     of them
>     >         >     > > all is nowhere limited to power of 2 or even only
>     >         multiples of 128K.
>     >         >     > >
>     >         >     >
>     >         >     > Re-reading the part of the device capacity, the rules
>     >         are more
>     >         >     complex:
>     >         >     >  - power of two up to 2 GB
>     >         >     >  - multiple of 512 bytes beyond that
>     >         >     >
>     >         >     > So that power-of-two enforcement was and still is
>     likely
>     >         too strict.
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >         > It is. Version 0 (and MMC) cards had the capacity
>     encoded like so:
>     >         >                 m = mmc_get_bits(raw_csd, 128, 62, 12);
>     >         >                 e = mmc_get_bits(raw_csd, 128, 47, 3);
>     >         >                 csd->capacity = ((1 + m) << (e + 2)) * csd-
>     >         >read_bl_len;
>     >         > so any card less than 2GB (well, technically 4GB, but 4GB
>     >         version 0
>     >         > cards were
>     >         > rare and broke some stacks... I have one and I love it on my
>     >         embedded
>     >         > ARM board
>     >         > that can't do version 1 cards). Version 1 cards encoded
>     it like:
>     >         >                 csd->capacity =
>     >         ((uint64_t)mmc_get_bits(raw_csd, 128,
>     >         > 48, 22) +
>     >         >                     1) * 512 * 1024;
>     >         > So it's a multiple of 512k. These are also called 'high
>     >         capacity' cards.
>     >         >
>     >         > Version 4 introduces an extended CSD, which had a pure
>     sector
>     >         count in
>     >         > the EXT CSD. I think this
>     >         > is only for MMC cards. And also the partition information.
>     >         >  
>     >         >
>     >         >     > But I still see no indication, neither in the existing
>     >         eMMC code
>     >         >     of QEMU
>     >         >     > nor the spec, that the boot and RPMB partition
>     sizes are
>     >         included
>     >         >     in that.
>     >         >
>     >         >     Correct. Non-power-of-two sizes are very common for real
>     >         eMMCs.
>     >         >     Taking a random
>     >         >     one from our lab:
>     >         >     [    1.220588] mmcblk1: mmc1:0001 S0J56X 14.8 GiB
>     >         >     [    1.228055]  mmcblk1: p1 p2 p3 p4
>     >         >     [    1.230375] mmcblk1boot0: mmc1:0001 S0J56X 31.5 MiB
>     >         >     [    1.233651] mmcblk1boot1: mmc1:0001 S0J56X 31.5 MiB
>     >         >     [    1.236682] mmcblk1rpmb: mmc1:0001 S0J56X 4.00 MiB,
>     >         chardev (244:0)
>     >         >
>     >         >     For eMMCs using MLC NAND, you can also configure part of
>     >         the user
>     >         >     data area to
>     >         >     be pSLC (pseudo single level cell), which changes the
>     >         available
>     >         >     capacity (after
>     >         >     a required power cycle).
>     >         >
>     >         >
>     >         > Yes. Extended partitions are a feature of version 4
>     cards, so
>     >         don't have
>     >         > power-of-2 limits since they are a pure sector count in the
>     >         ext_csd.
>     >         >
>     >
>     >         JESD84-B51A (eMMC 5.1A):
>     >
>     >         "The C_SIZE parameter is used to compute the device
>     capacity for
>     >         devices
>     >         up to 2 GB of density. See 7.4.52, SEC_COUNT [215:212] , for
>     >         details on
>     >         calculating densities greater than 2 GB."
>     >
>     >         So I would now continue to enforce power-of-2 for 2G
>     (including)
>     >         cards,
>     >         and relax to multiples of 512 for larger ones.
>     >
>     >
>     >     It's a multiple of 512k unless the card has a ext_csd, in
>     which case
>     >     it's a multiple of 512.
>     >
>     >
>     > More completely, this is from MMC 4.0 and newer. Extended Capacity SD
>     > cards report this in units of 512k bytes for all cards > 2GiB.
>     >
> 
>     I'm not sure which spec version you are referring to, but JESD84-A441
>     and JESD84-B51A mention nothing about 512K, rather "Device density =
>     SEC_COUNT x 512B". And these are the specs we very likely need to follow
>     here.
> 
> 
> You are right that this is in the MMC spec. However, the SD spec is
> controlling for SD cards.
> 
> SD Specifications Part 1 Physical Layer Simplified Specification Version
> 9.10
> December 1, 2023
> 
> Section 5.3 describes the CSD. Version 1.0 (which I'd called version 0
> in an earlier email because of its encoding) is the 2GB rule. Version

< 2G or <= 2G? For eMMC, it is <=.

> 2.0 and 3.0 encode it as 512k count (from 5.3.3):
> 
> C_SIZE
> This field is expanded to 28 bits and can indicate up to 128 TBytes.
> 
> This parameter is used to calculate the user data area capacity in the
> SD memory card (note that size of the protected area is zero for SDUC
> card). The user data area capacity is calculated from C_SIZE as follows:
> 
> memory capacity = (C_SIZE+1) * 512KByte
> 
> The Minimum user area size of SDUC Card is 4,294,968,320 sectors
> (2TB+0.5MB).
> The Minimum value of C_SIZE for SDUC in CSD Version 3.0 is 0400000h
> (4194304). The Maximum user area size of SDUC Card is 274,877,906,944
> sectors (128TB).
> The Maximum value of C_SIZE for SDUC in CSD Version 3.0 is FFFFFFFh
> (268435455).
> 
> So SD cards are yet again gratuitously different than MMC cards.
> 

Argh, then we need to take the card type into account as well. Need to
rework my patch...

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center

Reply via email to