On 02/04/2015 09:54 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 2 February 2015 at 10:02, addy ke <addy.ke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 2015/2/2 16:17, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 2 February 2015 at 09:16, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> about bus_ops->alive, I think it can't use in tuning state. >>>>>> Because: >>>>>> bus_ops->alive() --> mmc_sd_alive(host) /* sd card */ -->mmc_send_status(host->card, NULL); >>>>>> But host->card == NULL in tuning state(mmc_sd_init_card->mmc_sd_init_uhs_card). >>>>>> >>>>>> Only if sd is initialized successfully, we can get card pointer by host->card. >>>>>> see: mmc_sd_init_card(drivers/mmc/core/sd.c), the end of this function: host->card = card >>>>> And bus_ops->alive only check whether mmc is alive or not, the second parameter(*status) is NULL, >>>>> We can not get the card status. >>>>> But in tuning state, we need wait until card is idle, if the previous tuning is failed. >>>> >>>> You are right that we can't use bus_ops->alive() in its current form. >>>> Changing it to take "card" and "status" as parameter should fix this >>>> for us. My point was more that we can't use mmc_send_status() since >>>> that doesn't work for SDIO. >> >> For sdio, I think maybe we can use CMD7 to get sdio status. >> >> And there are 3 file which need get card status at least: >> 1. drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c: mmc_send_status() >> 2. drivers/mmc/card/block.c: get_card_status() >> 3. drivers/mmc/card/mmc_test.c: mmc_test_wait_busy() >> Maybe we need merge them and provide uniform interface for them. >> >>>> >>>> Anyway, it seems like we need to put this patchset on hold for a while. >>>> >>>> You I merge the below patch instead so we at least have something >>> >>> /s /You / Should >>> >>>> working for 3.20? >> This patch can work, but it need delay 10ms each tuning. >> It is too slow to initialize the card(tuning time >= (10 * tuning_count) ms) > > Yes, it seems like it's not the perfect solution, but what options do > we have right now? Leave it as is or should I apply below patch? > > Jaehoon, what's your view on this? It's not the best solution, but if needs to use this, we need to apply the other approach in future. Well, i'm working other job..I think i can start to work for dw-mmc on next-week. I think good that the below patch should be merged at first. Then try to find and discuss more generic solution, how about? Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > >>>> >>>> [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: rockchip: Add DW_MCI_QUIRK_RETRY_DELAY >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/13/562 >>>> > > Kind regards > Uffe > -- 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
