Hi all,
On 12/04/2015 09:35 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> On 12/02/2015 12:53 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Eric Nelson <e...@nelint.com> wrote:
>>
> ...
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> index 53084a7..8f5d9e1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>> @@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ int mmc_send_cmd(struct mmc *mmc, struct mmc_cmd
>>> *cmd, struct mmc_data *data)
>>> #else
>>> ret = mmc->cfg->ops->send_cmd(mmc, cmd, data);
>>> #endif
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + printf("error %d from CMD_SEND:%d\n", ret, cmd->cmdidx);
>>> +
>>> return ret;
>>
>> Applying this change on top of head I get:
>>
>> => mmc erase 4000 1000
>>
>> MMC erase: dev # 2, block # 16384, count 4096 ... Timeout waiting for DAT0
>> to go
>> high!
>> error -19 from CMD_SEND:38
>> mmc erase failed
>> 0 blocks erased: ERROR
>
> How easy is this for you to reproduce?
>
> I'm only seeing the error sporadically, which makes it difficult to
> test.
>
I've figured out a way to repeat this on my machine.
If I write 0xff's to the eMMC blocks, then issue an erase for the same,
I get the problem with each MMC_ERASE command.
I've also found something that fixes the issue in my testing.
Changing SECURE_ERASE to 0 from 0x80000000 in include/mmc.h allows
things to function for me.
Page 115 of the JEDEC eMMC 4.5 spec says that bit 31 is obsolete and
should be zero:
http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/jesd84-B45.pdf
Hector and Fabio, can you test that change?
Please advise,
Eric
diff --git a/include/mmc.h b/include/mmc.h
index cda9a19..b1528d4 100644
--- a/include/mmc.h
+++ b/include/mmc.h
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
#define OCR_VOLTAGE_MASK 0x007FFF80
#define OCR_ACCESS_MODE 0x60000000
-#define SECURE_ERASE 0x80000000
+#define SECURE_ERASE 0x00000000
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
