On 10/01/12 12:59, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 09/01/12 16:27, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/12 15:14, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>>> My concern is more about what we actually can trust; either the GPIO irq
>>>>>>> which likely is giving more than one irq when inserting/removing a card
>>>>>>> since the slot is probably not glitch free, or that a "rescan" runs to
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> sure a CMD13 is accepted from the previously inserted card.
>>>>>> Yes, I guess you would need to debounce the GPIO if you wanted to rely
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moreover, the issue this patch tries to solve can not be solved without
>>>>>>> doing a "rescan" which must be triggered from the the block layer some
>>>>>>> how.
>>>>>>> I thought this new function that you previously added
>>>>>>> "mmc_detect_card_remove" was the proper place to do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let the mmc_detect_card_removed function trigger a new detect
>>>>>>>>> work immediately when it discovers that a card has been removed.
>>>>>>>> This is changing some long-standing functionality i.e. the card is not
>>>>>>>> removed
>>>>>>>> without a card detect event. It is difficult to know whether that
>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> bad for poor quality cards,
>>>>>>> Doing a mmc_detect (rescan) will in the end just issue a CMD13 to the
>>>>>>> card
>>>>>>> to make sure it is still present, that is already done from the block
>>>>>>> layer
>>>>>>> after each read/write request. So I can not see that "poor quality
>>>>>>> cards"
>>>>>>> will have any further problem with this patch, but I might miss
>>>>>>> something!?
>>>>>> The block driver has never caused a card to be removed before. That
>>>>>> is new
>>>>>> and it is designed to preserve existing behaviour i.e. do not remove a
>>>>>> card
>>>>>> without a card detect event.
>>>>> True, but is this a problem!?
>>>> Better not to find out.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Then there is lot of other things around mmc we also should not change.
>>
>> Can you give an example of a change in existing functionality? Isn't
>> everything either a bug fix or new functionality?
>>
>>>>> Anyway, this is the actual issue this patch is trying to solve. If you
>>>>> remove a card "slowly", a "rescan" work, which the GPIO irq has
>>>>> triggered to
>>>>> run will run the CMD13 to verify that the card is still there. Since it
>>>>> has
>>>>> not completely been removed the CMD13 will succeed and the card will
>>>>> not be
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover every other new block request will soon start to fail and always
>>>>> do; until a new rescan is triggered (which is when you insert a new
>>>>> card or
>>>>> do a suspend-resume cycle). In practice I think it is more preferred that
>>>>> the card gets removed and it's corresponding block device.
>>>> There are other ways to solve that problem. Apart from my previous
>>>> suggestion, there is also the possibility to make use of ->get_cd
>>>> instead of CMD13, someone already posted a patch for that
>>>> "[PATCH 2/4 v4] MMC/SD: Add callback function to detect card"
>>>> but it should probably be selected on a per driver basis (i.e. add a
>>>> MMC_CAP2 for it). I guess you would still need to debounce the GPIO
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately that wont help to solve this issue either. That patch will
>>> only prevent you from executing a CMD13 if the get_cd function says the card
>>> is still there. I kind of micro optimization I think, unless you very often
>>> encounters errors in the block layer.
>>
>> No, the rescan calls that code, so if get_cd() returns 0 the card will be
>> removed irrespective of whether it has been pulled out slowly or not.
>
> That is not correct. The rescan uses the get_cd function to find out if
> it really make sense to try to initialize a new card. It is not used for
> removing existing cards.
mmc_rescan() first calls host->bus_ops->detect() to see if the card is still
there. If the card does not respond then it is removed. Then mmc_rescan
attempts to initialize a new card. host->bus_ops->detect() is not used for that.
>
> You were referring to "[PATCH 2/4 v4] MMC/SD: Add callback function to
> detect card". This patch will prevent the bus_ops->alive function to be
> called if the get_cd function indicates that the card is still there. I
> can not see how this on it's own will help out to solve the issue my
> patch is trying to solve.
Yes it will because it is called by mmc_rescan() and used to remove the card
via host->bus_ops->detect()
>
>>
>>> The key in this patch is that a rescan work is triggered to fully verify
>>> that the card is still there and if not, it can remove it. I don't think
>>> this is such a big matter, but of course this is my own opinion. :-)
>>
>> Another issue with your patch is that the card will not be removed unless
>> there is subsequent I/O to cause an I/O error and subsequent rescan.
>>
>
> This is exactly the problem this patch is trying to solve. Instead of
> "forever" keeping the card inserted and thus returning errors for every
> new I/O request, we trigger a rescan to fully remove the card.
If the user pulls out the card slowly so that the rescan sees the card still
there, then if there is no I/O there will be no I/O error and the kernel
will not remove the card - until the user sticks in another card or tries to
access files that are not there.
>
>>>>>> You are assuming:
>>>>>> 1. that a poor quality card will not return errors for a few
>>>>>> commands and then resume operation
>>>>> I see your point. I did some tests with a bunch of old crappy cards,
>>>>> both SD
>>>>> and MMC which I had in my collection. I have found none of these to
>>>>> trigger
>>>>> a undesirable removal of the card.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I have only a subset of all cards, so this can not be fully
>>>>> tested
>>>>> for all existing cards.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. that removing a card on error is desirable
>>>>> Well, we will just fire of a rescan work to check if the card has been
>>>>> removed. If it is still there it will of course not be removed.
>>>> Not if it has stopped responding. Again, this is a change in behaviour.
>>>> Previously, a card that stopped responding was not removed.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps in the future someone will want to try to recover cards that
>>>> stop responding, for example by power-cycling. That would be in
>>>> conflict with your approach because it would power cycle on every single
>>>> card removal.
>>> This is pure hypothetical and the simple solution to such an idea would
>>> just be to do a "power-cycle attempt" before considering scheduling the
>>> rescan work in the mmc_detect_card_removed function.
>>
>> Nevertheless, in your case a power-cycle would be done for every card
>> removal.
>
> Do quite follow, what do you mean by every card removal? We detect that
> the card has been removed (by using _mmc_detect_card_removed) and only
> at that time a rescan (power-cycle) is triggered.
>
>>
>>>>>> Both those assumptions may be true, but there is no evidence that they
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This will solve the described issue above. Moreover we make sure
>>>>>>>>> the detect work is executed as soon as possible, since there is
>>>>>>>>> no reason for waiting for a "delayed" detect to happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson<ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
>>>>>>>>> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 1 -
>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>>>>>> index 4770807..7bc02f4 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1462,7 +1462,6 @@ void mmc_detect_change(struct mmc_host *host,
>>>>>>>>> unsigned long delay)
>>>>>>>>> WARN_ON(host->removed);
>>>>>>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>> - host->detect_change = 1;
>>>>>>>>> mmc_schedule_delayed_work(&host->detect, delay);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2077,18 +2076,23 @@ int _mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host
>>>>>>>>> *host)
>>>>>>>>> int mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> struct mmc_card *card = host->card;
>>>>>>>>> + int ret = 1;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WARN_ON(!host->claimed);
>>>>>>>>> - /*
>>>>>>>>> - * The card will be considered unchanged unless we have been
>>>>>>>>> asked to
>>>>>>>>> - * detect a change or host requires polling to provide card
>>>>>>>>> detection.
>>>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>>>> - if (card&& !host->detect_change&& !(host->caps&
>>>>>>>>> MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL))
>>>>>>>>> - return mmc_card_removed(card);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - host->detect_change = 0;
>>>>>>>>> + if (card&& !mmc_card_removed(card)) {
>>>>>>>>> + if (_mmc_detect_card_removed(host)) {
>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>> + * Make sure a detect work is always executed and also
>>>>>>>>> + * do it as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>> + cancel_delayed_work(&host->detect);
>>>>>>>>> + mmc_detect_change(host, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + ret = mmc_card_removed(card);
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - return _mmc_detect_card_removed(host);
>>>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_detect_card_removed);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2112,8 +2116,6 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>>>>>> && !(host->caps& MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE))
>>>>>>>>> host->bus_ops->detect(host);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - host->detect_change = 0;
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> * Let mmc_bus_put() free the bus/bus_ops if we've found that
>>>>>>>>> * the card is no longer present.
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>>>>>> index 031d865..09fa5e6 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>>>>>>>>> @@ -305,7 +305,6 @@ struct mmc_host {
>>>>>>>>> int claim_cnt; /* "claim" nesting count */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> struct delayed_work detect;
>>>>>>>>> - int detect_change; /* card detect flag */
>>>>>>>>> struct mmc_hotplug hotplug;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> const struct mmc_bus_ops *bus_ops; /* current bus driver */
>>>>>>> Br
>>>>>>> Ulf Hansson
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> BR
> Ulf Hansson
>
>
--
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
