lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mmc: core: Do not hold re-tuning during CMD6 commands
From
Date
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 12:01 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 28/03/17 11:30, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>>
> >>> If there is a problem in __mmc_switch(), let's try to fix it there first.
> >>>
> >> Anyway, it is a bug of retry 3 times at max but without check current
> >> card status and ensure it's in transfer state before next retry.
> >
> > Correct. Do you want to send a patch that fixes this? Otherwise I can do it...
> >
Actually, it may hard to check card status, if host supports
MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY or mmc->card_busy(), it will easy to know
current card status, or we must issue CMD13 to do polling, but as you
know, CMD13 may also gets response CRC error.
> >>>>>> I think the purpose of "re-tune" is trying to cover particular case(eg.
> >>>>>> voltage fluctuate or EMI or some glitch of host/device which caused CRC
> >>>>>> error)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, re-tuning is to compensate for drift caused primarily by temperature change.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, by JEDEC spec, temperature change cause timing drift of EMMC
> >>>> device, but, as you mentioned, maybe I have a hardware problem of host,
> >>>> but needs Software to cover it. so that we are doing our best to do
> >>>> re-tune if got CRC error. if could recover it, then it's better than
> >>>> system hung.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly in what cases do you get CRC errors for CMD6. We need a full
> >>> cmd log to understand and to help.
> >>>
> >>>>>> error) , but in such cases, too many cases are disable re-tune function
> >>>>>> by mmc_retune_hold(), for example, in this case, if a response CRC error
> >>>>>> got then we never have chance to recover it. then cause system cannot
> >>>>>> access emmc or suspend/resume fail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe you have a hardware problem.
> >>>
> >>> There is no way I am going to accept patches touching this part of the
> >>> mmc core, without providing real evidence for how it solves a problem.
> >>> To me, it seems like you are applying a workaround for another issue.
> >>>
> >>> Again, try to provide us with some more data and logs, then perhaps we
> >>> can help narrow down the issues.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards
> >>> Uffe
> >>
> >> Below is the fail log of suspend fail.
> >> the normal command tune result should be 0xffffff9ff, but some time, we
> >> get the tune result of 0xffffffff, then we choose the 10 as the best
> >> tune parameter, which is not stable.
> >> I know that we should focus on why we get the result of 0xffffffff, this
> >> may be result of device/host timing shifting while tuning. but what I
> >> want to do is that when get a response CRC error, we can do re-tune to
> >> recovery it, but not only return the -84 and cause suspend fail
> >> eventually. if all hardware are perfect, then we don't need the re-tune
> >> mechanism.
> >
> > Thanks for elaborating!
> >
> > Can you please also tell exactly which of the CMD6 commands in the
> > suspend sequence that is triggering this problem? Cache flush? Power
> > off notification?
> >
> >>
> >> as Adrian's comment, if temperature change at here caused CMD6 response
> >> CRC error, then how to recovery it ?
> >
> > So in your case, allowing re-tuning a little longer in __mmc_switch()
> > solves your problem. Clearly there are cases when we need to prevent
> > re-tuning when sending CMD6, however maybe not in all cases as we do
> > today.
> >
> > For example it seems reasonable to not hold retuning before sending
> > CMD6 for cache flush, but instead it should be sufficient to hold it
> > before polling for busy in __mmc_switch().
> >
> > Adrian, what's your thoughts on this?
>
> mmc_retune_hold() and mmc_retune_release() are designed to go around a group
> of commands, but re-tuning can still be done before the first command. i.e.
>
> mmc_retune_hold
> <re-tune can happen here>
> cmd A
> <re-tune not allowed here>
> cmd B
> <re-tune not allowed here>
> cmd C
> mmc_retune_release
>
> That is the same in the retry case:
>
> mmc_retune_hold
> <re-tune can happen here>
> cmd A
> <re-tune not allowed here>
> retry cmd A
> <re-tune not allowed here>
> cmd B
> <re-tune not allowed here>
> cmd C
> mmc_retune_release

Thanks for explain the mechanism of mmc_retune_hold()
>
> The retry mechanism provided by mmc_wait_for_cmd() and friends really only
> makes sense for simple commands. In other cases, like this, we need to
> consider what state the card is in. For __mmc_switch we need to consider
> whether the card is busy or whether a timing change been made.
>
Yes, different R1B command need different handle, like CMD12, if card is
not in send/recv state, retry of CMD12 will get timeout.
> >
> >>
> >> [ 129.106622] (0)[96:mmcqd/0]mtk-msdc 11230000.mmc: phase:
> >> [map:fffff9ff] [maxlen:21] [final:21] -->current result is OK and 21 is
> >> stable
> >> [ 129.109404] (0)[96:mmcqd/0]mtk-msdc 11230000.mmc: phase:
> >> [map:ffffe03f] [maxlen:19] [final:22]
> >> --------------------> below is next resume and re-init card:
> >> [ 129.778454] (0)[96:mmcqd/0]mtk-msdc 11230000.mmc: Regulator set
> >> error -22: 3300000 - 3300000
> >> [ 130.016987] (0)[96:mmcqd/0]mtk-msdc 11230000.mmc: phase:
> >> [map:ffffffff] [maxlen:32] [final:10] --> this result if not OK and 10
> >> is not stable.
> >
> > As you suspect the tuning didn't work out correctly, then why don't
> > you retry one more time?
>
> Or restore the previously known good result?
>
At runtime, we don't know if current tune result is OK or unstable.
when analysis the fail log, then find the difference between OK and NG
result.
> >
> >> [ 130.019556] (0)[96:mmcqd/0]mtk-msdc 11230000.mmc: phase:
> >> [map:ffffc03f] [maxlen:18] [final:23]
> >> [ 130.124279] (1)[1248:system_server]mmc0: cache flush error -84
> >> [ 130.125058] (1)[1248:system_server]dpm_run_callback():
> >> mmc_bus_suspend+0x0/0x4c returns -84
> >> [ 130.126104] (1)[1248:system_server]PM: Device mmc0:0001 failed to
> >> suspend: error -84
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Uffe
> >
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-28 12:08    [W:0.096 / U:1.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site