Hi Adrian,
On Monday 19 March 2018 03:30 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 19/03/18 11:20, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> On Friday 16 March 2018 07:51 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 16/03/18 08:29, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 15 March 2018 06:43 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/18 15:20, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>>> sdhci has a 10 second timeout to catch devices that stop responding.
>>>>>> Instead of programming 10 second arbitrary value, calculate the total time
>>>>>> it would take for the entire transfer to happen and program the timeout
>>>>>> value accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> index 1dd117cbeb6e..baab67bfa39b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>>>> @@ -709,6 +709,36 @@ static u32 sdhci_sdma_address(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>>>>> return sg_dma_address(host->data->sg);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static void sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>>>> + struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>>>> + unsigned int target_timeout)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
>>>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>>>>>> + u64 transfer_time;
>>>>>> + struct mmc_ios *ios = &mmc->ios;
>>>>>> + unsigned char bus_width = 1 << ios->bus_width;
>>>>>> + unsigned int blksz;
>>>>>> + unsigned int freq;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (data) {
>>>>>> + blksz = data->blksz;
>>>>>> + freq = host->mmc->actual_clock ? : host->clock;
>>>>>> + transfer_time = (u64)blksz * NSEC_PER_SEC * (8 / bus_width);
>>>>>> + do_div(transfer_time, freq);
>>>>>> + /* multiply by '2' to account for any unknowns */
>>>>>> + transfer_time = transfer_time * 2;
>>>>>> + /* calculate timeout for the entire data */
>>>>>> + host->data_timeout = (data->blocks * ((target_timeout *
>>>>>> + NSEC_PER_USEC) +
>>>>>> + transfer_time));
>>>>>
>>>>> (target_timeout * NSEC_PER_USEC) might be 32-bit and therefore overflow
>>>>> for timeouts greater than about 4 seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>> + host->data_timeout = (u64)target_timeout * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + host->data_timeout += MMC_CMD_TRANSFER_TIME;
>>>>>
>>>>> Need to allow for target_timeout == 0 so:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (host->data_timeout)
>>>>> host->data_timeout += MMC_CMD_TRANSFER_TIME;
>>>>>
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> u8 count;
>>>>>> @@ -766,6 +796,7 @@ static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>>>> if (count >= 0xF)
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> + sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(host, cmd, target_timeout);
>>>>>
>>>>> If you make the changes I suggest for patch 6, then this would
>>>>> move sdhci_calc_sw_timeout() into sdhci_set_timeout().
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you factor out the target_timeout calculation e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> static unsigned int sdhci_target_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>>> struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>>> struct mmc_data *data)
>>>>> {
>>>>> unsigned int target_timeout;
>>>>>
>>>>> /* timeout in us */
>>>>> if (!data)
>>>>> target_timeout = cmd->busy_timeout * 1000;
>>>>> else {
>>>>> target_timeout = DIV_ROUND_UP(data->timeout_ns, 1000);
>>>>> if (host->clock && data->timeout_clks) {
>>>>> unsigned long long val;
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * data->timeout_clks is in units of clock cycles.
>>>>> * host->clock is in Hz. target_timeout is in us.
>>>>> * Hence, us = 1000000 * cycles / Hz. Round up.
>>>>> */
>>>>> val = 1000000ULL * data->timeout_clks;
>>>>> if (do_div(val, host->clock))
>>>>> target_timeout++;
>>>>> target_timeout += val;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> return target_timeout;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> And call it from sdhci_calc_sw_timeout()
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return count;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -1175,13 +1206,6 @@ void sdhci_send_command(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>>>> mdelay(1);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - timeout = jiffies;
>>>>>> - if (!cmd->data && cmd->busy_timeout > 9000)
>>>>>> - timeout += DIV_ROUND_UP(cmd->busy_timeout, 1000) * HZ + HZ;
>>>>>> - else
>>>>>> - timeout += 10 * HZ;
>>>>>> - sdhci_mod_timer(host, cmd->mrq, timeout);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> host->cmd = cmd;
>>>>>> if (sdhci_data_line_cmd(cmd)) {
>>>>>> WARN_ON(host->data_cmd);
>>>>>> @@ -1221,6 +1245,15 @@ void sdhci_send_command(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>>>> cmd->opcode == MMC_SEND_TUNING_BLOCK_HS200)
>>>>>> flags |= SDHCI_CMD_DATA;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + timeout = jiffies;
>>>>>> + if (host->data_timeout > 0) {
>>>>>
>>>>> This can be just:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (host->data_timeout) {
>>>>>
>>>>>> + timeout += nsecs_to_jiffies(host->data_timeout);
>>>>>> + host->data_timeout = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be better to initialize host->data_timeout = 0 at the top of
>>>>> sdhci_prepare_data().
>>>>>
>>>>> Also still need:
>>>>>
>>>>> else if (!cmd->data && cmd->busy_timeout > 9000) {
>>>>> timeout += DIV_ROUND_UP(cmd->busy_timeout, 1000) * HZ + HZ;
>>>>
>>>> sdhci_calc_sw_timeout should have calculated the timeout for this case too no?
>>>
>>> Yes, but I was thinking you would only calculate when it was needed.
>>
>> I feel since we would have anyways calculated data_timeout, we should use that
>> instead unless you see a problem with that.
>
> I would prefer not to calculate data_timeout when a hardware timeout is
> being used.
>
That differs from what I had thought. This patch tries to program a relatively
accurate SW timeout value (for data_timer) irrespective of whether hardware
timeout is used or not. This only tries to change the 10 Sec SW timeout value
programmed for all data transfer commands.
Thanks
Kishon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
