Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] mmc: mmci: fix clear of busy detect status | From | Ludovic BARRE <> | Date | Wed, 29 May 2019 11:20:42 +0200 |
| |
hi Ulf
On 5/27/19 8:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 09:46, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> wrote: >> >> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> >> >> The "busy_detect_flag" is used to read/clear busy value of >> mmci status. The "busy_detect_mask" is used to manage busy irq of >> mmci mask. >> For sdmmc variant, the 2 properties have not the same offset. >> To clear the busyd0 status bit, we must add busy detect flag, >> the mmci mask is not enough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> > > Ludovic, again, apologies for the delay. > >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> index a040f54..3cd52e8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> @@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) >> * to make sure that both start and end interrupts are always >> * cleared one after the other. >> */ >> - status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0); >> + status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0) | >> + host->variant->busy_detect_flag; > > I think this is not entirely correct, because it would mean we check > for busy even if we haven't unmasked the busy IRQ via the > variant->busy_detect_mask.
if the variant is busy_detect false: => no problem because the busy_detect_flag or busy_detect_mask is not defined.
if variant is busy_detect true: the busy handle is split in 3 steps (see mmci_cmd_irq): step 1: detection of busy line => unmasked the busy irq end step 2: in busy wait => ignore cmd irq while current busy flag is enabled. step 3: end of busy => clear and mask busy irq
To detect the first step (see mmci_cmd_irq: which unmasks the busy irq) we need to know the current busy state. Actually, the status register is re-read in mmci_cmd_irq, why not used the status read in mmci_irq and in parameter ?
Regards, Ludo
> > I suggest to store a new bool in the host (call it > "busy_detect_unmasked" or whatever makes sense to you), to track > whether we have unmasked the busy IRQ or not. Then take this flag into > account, before ORing the value of host->variant->busy_detect_flag, > according to above. > >> if (host->variant->busy_detect) >> writel(status & ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask, >> host->base + MMCICLEAR); >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> > > Kind regards > Uffe >
| |