Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling | From | Ludovic BARRE <> | Date | Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:08:57 +0100 |
| |
Hi Ulf
I could have a snowball board, I don't remember if it a ux500v1 or v2? This board has been removed of u-boot mainline, do you have a specific repository for snowball or what branch do you advise? do you have a snowball wiki (up-to-date) for flashing...
BR Ludo On 3/6/19 10:49 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 10:04, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Ulf >> >> On 3/6/19 10:00 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:10, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> >>>> >>>> The busy status bit could occurred even if no busy response is >>>> expected (example cmd11). On sdmmc variant, the busy_detect_flag >>>> reflects inverted value of d0 state, it's sampled at the end of a >>>> CMD response and a second time 2 clk cycles after the CMD response. >>>> To avoid a fake busy, the busy status could be checked and polled >>>> only if the command has RSP_BUSY flag. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> >>> >>> Before I review this, can you tell what HW you have tested this on? >> >> I tested on stm32mp157c (stm32_sdmmc variant) > > Okay, I see. So we need to get this tested for the ux500v2 variant as > well. I try to get some time to do that, soon. > > However it seems like you could benefit from having one of those > boards yourself. It would speed up the process, as you wouldn't have > to rely on me doing the test. :-) Is there a chance of you could dig > up some of these old boards from somewhere? > > Kind regards > Uffe > >> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Uffe >>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >>>> index 387ff14..4901b73 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >>>> @@ -1220,12 +1220,13 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd, >>>> unsigned int status) >>>> { >>>> void __iomem *base = host->base; >>>> - bool sbc; >>>> + bool sbc, busy_resp; >>>> >>>> if (!cmd) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> sbc = (cmd == host->mrq->sbc); >>>> + busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY); >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * We need to be one of these interrupts to be considered worth >>>> @@ -1239,8 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd, >>>> /* >>>> * ST Micro variant: handle busy detection. >>>> */ >>>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect) { >>>> - bool busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY); >>>> + if (busy_resp && host->variant->busy_detect) { >>>> >>>> /* We are busy with a command, return */ >>>> if (host->busy_status && >>>> @@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd, >>>> * that the special busy status bit is still set before >>>> * proceeding. >>>> */ >>>> - if (!host->busy_status && busy_resp && >>>> + if (!host->busy_status && >>>> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) && >>>> (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) { >>>> >>>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) >>>> { >>>> struct mmci_host *host = dev_id; >>>> u32 status; >>>> + bool busy_resp; >>>> int ret = 0; >>>> >>>> spin_lock(&host->lock); >>>> @@ -1550,9 +1551,15 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) >>>> } >>>> >>>> /* >>>> - * Don't poll for busy completion in irq context. >>>> + * Don't poll for: >>>> + * -busy completion in irq context. >>>> + * -no busy response expected. >>>> */ >>>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect && host->busy_status) >>>> + busy_resp = host->cmd ? >>>> + !!(host->cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) : false; >>>> + >>>> + if (host->variant->busy_detect && >>>> + (!busy_resp || host->busy_status)) >>>> status &= ~host->variant->busy_detect_flag; >>>> >>>> ret = 1; >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.4 >>>>
| |