‎2020-10-10 12:27 PM
Hi .
Below code has two part :
1- when there is response to CMD8
2- when there is not
And by this response we can determine if it is V1 or V2 but , when it will go for Initializing V2 after sending first ACMD41 then there is an "if" clause ,which will check response to knows if response is "SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND" then if it is "SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND" it will send ACMD41 with no argument .
---------------------
So there is two question here for me ?
(Both questions are related to line 947 in attached C file which is :)
if((response.r1 & SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND) == SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND)
1- Is second "if clause " for checking ( SDSC ) or ( SDHC and SDXC ) type card ? => what I've got is : It is for initializing V2 - SDSC type card so it will send ACMD41 with no argument (HCS = 0) .(Am I right ?) ( It is what I got from flowchart in "SPI Mode Initilization Flow" part of SD documents ).
2- I read "Physical_Layer_Simplified_Specification" more than ten times but ,I couldn't find description, when it will send "SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND" in response of ACMD41 (which used in "if clause " after first ACMD41 with argument HCS = 1 ,so by checking response second ACMD41 which is in this "if clause " will send with HCS = 0 because of this ), which page has described this part of ACMD41 in SPI mode ?
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_SEND_IF_COND, 0x1AA, 0x87, SD_ANSWER_R7_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
if((response.r1 & SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND) == SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND)
{
/* initialise card V1 */
do
{
/* initialise card V1 */
/* Send CMD55 (SD_CMD_APP_CMD) before any ACMD command: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_APP_CMD, 0x00000000, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
/* Send ACMD41 (SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND) to initialize SDHC or SDXC cards: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND, 0x00000000, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
}
while(response.r1 == SD_R1_IN_IDLE_STATE);
flag_SDHC = 0;
}
else if(response.r1 == SD_R1_IN_IDLE_STATE)
{
/* initialise card V2 */
do {
/* Send CMD55 (SD_CMD_APP_CMD) before any ACMD command: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_APP_CMD, 0, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
/* Send ACMD41 (SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND) to initialize SDHC or SDXC cards: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND, 0x40000000, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
}
while(response.r1 == SD_R1_IN_IDLE_STATE);
//********************************QA**********************************
// below line of code is where I could not find description for it in SD Documentation
//********************************QA**********************************
if((response.r1 & SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND) == SD_R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND)
{
do {
/* Send CMD55 (SD_CMD_APP_CMD) before any ACMD command: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_APP_CMD, 0, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
if(response.r1 != SD_R1_IN_IDLE_STATE)
{
return BSP_SD_ERROR;
}
/* Send ACMD41 (SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND) to initialize SDHC or SDXC cards: R1 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_SD_APP_OP_COND, 0x00000000, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R1_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
}
while(response.r1 == SD_R1_IN_IDLE_STATE);
}
/* Send CMD58 (SD_CMD_READ_OCR) to initialize SDHC or SDXC cards: R3 response (0x00: no errors) */
response = SD_SendCmd(SD_CMD_READ_OCR, 0x00000000, 0xFF, SD_ANSWER_R3_EXPECTED);
SD_IO_CSState(1);
SD_IO_WriteByte(SD_DUMMY_BYTE);
if(response.r1 != SD_R1_NO_ERROR)
{
return BSP_SD_ERROR;
}
flag_SDHC = (response.r2 & 0x40) >> 6;
‎2020-10-19 01:04 PM
>But here is the problem it will multiply our EndAddress with 512 !
Compare it with the FatFs implementation at http://elm-chan.org/fsw/ff/ffsample.zip. You'll find it in stm32\mmc_stm32f1_spi.c.
@Amel NASRI​, could you escalate this please? The stm32_adafruit_sd.c of https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32CubeF1/tree/master/Drivers/BSP/Adafruit_Shield and other repositories (F4, etc) have implemented erase incorrectly.
‎2020-10-19 02:18 PM
Ok . But I hate FatFs, It is like below picture :
:grimacing_face:
‎2020-10-19 03:23 PM
The software is layered
FatFs is an example file-system.
stm32_adafruit_sd.c is an SD driver. Fixing stm32_adafruit_sd.c or switching to a different SD driver like the one in http://elm-chan.org/fsw/ff/ffsample.zip doesn't force you to use FatFs.