Philip Rakity wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>
>> Chuanxiao Dong wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> From the previous discussion, I do not think we have got a clear conclusion
>>> about using maximum timeout value. At least we know from Jae hoon Chung
>>> using 0xE for every case is not a good. So I want to suggest only use 0xE for
>>> busy command. I personally preferred below implementation, which is similar
>>> with a RFC patch submitted by Jae hoon Chung, but only without adding a new
>>> quirk.
>> thanks for remind.
>> Yes, i tested without quirks, i think that is not problem.
>> (Just sent RFC patch with quirks, because i want to ask how think about adding quirks or not).
>
>
>
> Sorry I am confused.
>
> Setting 0x0E all the time does not solve the problem and has side effects ?
> What are the side effects ?
Side effect?? i didn't mention "side effect", just not resolved for every case..
That case is SDHCI didn't support the specific cards during suspend/resume.
i didn't know Mr.Chuanxiao's case.
>
> Using BUSY patch for 0x0e (below) works ?
>
>>> I think sdhci_calc_timeout should be left for data transfer since at least we
>>> can get a warning if 0xE is not enough for host to use. And if the host
>>> controller and the card have no bugs, then the calculated timeout should be
>>> safe. Left the old implementation unchanged is also compatible with all
>>> existed host controllers and cards.
>>>
>>> But for busy command, we are not clear about how long is safe enough for
>>> waiting and there is also no function to do the calculation for them. So
>>> preferred just using 0xE. Below the patch and comment:
>>>
>>> Set the timeout control register for SDHCI host when send some commands which
>>> need busy signal. Use the maximum timeout value 0xE will be safe.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> index 99c372e..8306323 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -659,8 +659,15 @@ static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_data *data)
>>>
>>> WARN_ON(host->data);
>>>
>>> - if (data == NULL)
>>> + if (data == NULL) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * set the timeout to be maximum value for commands those with
>>> + * busy signal
>>> + */
>>> + if (host->cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY)
>>> + sdhci_writeb(host, 0xE, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL);
>>> return;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> /* Sanity checks */
>>> BUG_ON(data->blksz * data->blocks > 524288);
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
