On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:03:31AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> >> +static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
> >> +{
> >> u8 ctrl;
> >> struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> WARN_ON(host->data);
> >>
> >> - if (data || (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY)) {
> >> - count = sdhci_calc_timeout(host, cmd);
> >
> > From what I read the commit log, I think it might be more appropriate to
> > patch sdhci_calc_timeout() like the following?
> >
> > if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_TIMEOUT_VAL)
> > if (host->ops->get_max_timeout)
> > return host->ops->get_max_timeout(host);
> > else
> > return 0xE;
> >
>
> The return val of sdhci_calc_timeout is the register value to be
> written into timeout counter register.
> host->ops->get_max_timeout returns the max timeout in miliseconds directly.
> So we can not do like that here.
> They're two concepts.
I did not make my comment clear. The .get_max_timeout() is not the one
you defined in patch #1 any more, but something like the following for
esdhc driver, which returns correct timeout value not milliseconds.
unsigned int esdhc_get_max_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host)
{
struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
struct pltfm_imx_data *imx_data = pltfm_host->priv;
return esdhc_is_usdhc(imx_data) ? 0xF : 0xE;
}
Does that match the problem you described in the commit log better?
Shawn
--
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
