I think that always use max timeout for xfers is not bed.. But when i have sent the RFC patch, during suspend/resume is appeared some problem. (when busy-waiting, occurred interrupt..so illegal sequence error is occurred..) Anyone found same problem when suspend/resume? So, i think that setting maximum timeout value is not good solution about every case. Regards, Jaehoon Chung Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:49:25AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote: >> v2 >> >> use define for max timeout. remove subroutine call and just >> set the register directly > > The generic description goes above the "---" line, the incremental > history of the patch usually below. > >> v1 >> >> The card/host controller may sometimes return a value that is >> too low and cause the h/w to timeout a transfer that would have >> worked. Using the maximum value avoids this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity <prakity@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > What is there seems ok, but it is not enough yet. The quirks can also go > from the users. > > After that, it gets even more complicated; after this patch > 'host->timeout_clk' becomes obsolete which should probably cleaned up in > a later patch together with host->ops->get_timeout_clk. Hmmmm, that > needs careful auditing. > > Regards, > > Wolfram > -- 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
