> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wolfram Sang > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:34 AM > To: Dong, Chuanxiao > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cjb@xxxxxxxxxx; > arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx; prakity@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3]set timeout control reg for such SDHCI host > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:38:59AM +0800, Dong, Chuanxiao wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 07:26:13PM +0800, Chuanxiao Dong wrote: > > > > > > > + if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_FORCE_ERASE_SINGLE) { > > > > + /* Set the timeout to be the maximum value */ > > > > + if (cmd->erase_timeout) > > > > + sdhci_writeb(host, 0xE, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > sdhci_writew(host, SDHCI_MAKE_CMD(cmd->opcode, flags), > > > > SDHCI_COMMAND); > > > > > > Hmm, this looks like another argument for Philip's idea to always > > > use the maximum timeout value and skip the quirks related to it? > > > > Yes, if always using the maximum timeout value is OK for other command, the > patch2 can be removed I think. > > The new added quirk in the serials patches is used to set the limitation of request > queue, not only just to set the timeout control reg. > > Even the timeout value was set to be 0xE (the maximum value), erasing too many > sectors can still be failed since the timeout time was still not longer enough. > > So the count of erased sectors passed down by request queue should be reduced > by using this quirk. > > Yes, I think I understand the issue. Have you tried adding a callback, so we don't > have the options between MAX_UINT and '1' but rather MAX_UINT and return > value of the callback? I added a function to calculate a more suitable max_discard_sectors value for SDHCI host controller in version 1 patches. This value was calculated by the timeout time host controller can wait and the erase timeout. Is that the callback you mean? In this version, I added a function called mmc_set_discard_limit to detect whether the host has a new cap called MMC_CAP_ERASE_SINGLE. They can be found in patch1. If host has been set MMC_CAP_ERASE_SINGLE cap, just returns '1'. And if not, return MAX_UINT. I used this way in version 3 patches instead of the calculated way since I thought using an easier way to work around a hardware issue was better. Any suggestion about solving this kind of problem? Thanks Chuanxiao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
