On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 16:49, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > On 4/16/2020 5:46 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 17:54, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti > > <vbadigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> sdhci-msm controller requires the R1B response for commands that > >> has this response associated with them. > >> > >> So enable MMC_CAP_NEED_RSP_BUSY capability. > > I assume this potentially should be considered as fix and tagged for stable? > Yes Stable flag can be applied to this. > > Patch with MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY cap also needed besides this. > Shall I push V2 with stable flag? Ah, so maybe squash both into one patch to simplify for stable? Yes, please add a stable tag in v2. > > > Another question, if there is there an upper limit of the busy timeout > > in the HW (cmd->busy_timeout) or does the driver use a software > > timeout that is adjustable? > > The max supported h.w busy timeout value on qcom h/w 21sec. Alright, that sounds like it should be sufficient for most cases. But perhaps not for eMMC sanitize. How do you cope with the situation when the R1B response is passed to the driver and the cmd->busy_timeout exceeds the 21s? [...] Kind regards Uffe
