On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 09:45:07AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > Ulf, > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26 January 2015 at 12:19, Addy Ke <addy.ke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> We need to take the card pointer in execute_tuning() for mmc_send_status(), > > > > mmc_send_status() is an mmc core function, not intended for host's to call. > > > >> but mmc->card is NULL in tuning state. So we need change the first parameter > >> of execute_tuning() to card pointer(struct mmc_card * card). > > > > So, why do we need this? > > I asked Addy to post upstream against mmc_send_tuning(), but I guess > he didn't (he posted against Alex's NAKed patch instead). > > ...when I talked to him about it, Addy was asserting that when tuning > fails it is important (at least on dw_mmc on rk3288) that we wait for > the card to stop being busy and that the way to detect was using > mmc_send_status(). > > That would mean that against upstream you'd need to change > mmc_send_tuning() to take in the card as well (or move the "host->card > = card" assignment to before UHS init, which seems less desirable?) > > What do you think about that? Is there a better solution? That sounds like a generic thing though - in which case, what do the specs have to say on this, and does the code implement what it says? -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- 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
