On 2 June 2016 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + Linus
>>
>> On 29 May 2016 at 09:04, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> When IS_ERR_VALUE was removed from the mmc core code, it was replaced
>>> with a simple not-zero check. This does not work, as the value checked
>>> is the return value for mmc_select_bus_width, which returns the set
>>> bit width on success. This made eMMC modes higher than HS-DDR unusable.
>>>
>>> Fix this by checking for a positive return value instead.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 287980e49ffc ("remove lots of IS_ERR_VALUE abuses")
>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> index c984321d1881..aafb73d080ca 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
>>> @@ -1276,7 +1276,7 @@ static int mmc_select_hs200(struct mmc_card *card)
>>> * switch to HS200 mode if bus width is set successfully.
>>> */
>>> err = mmc_select_bus_width(card);
>>> - if (!err) {
>>> + if (err > 0) {
>>> val = EXT_CSD_TIMING_HS200 |
>>> card->drive_strength << EXT_CSD_DRV_STR_SHIFT;
>>> err = __mmc_switch(card, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL,
>>> @@ -1583,7 +1583,7 @@ static int mmc_init_card(struct mmc_host *host, u32 ocr,
>>> } else if (mmc_card_hs(card)) {
>>> /* Select the desired bus width optionally */
>>> err = mmc_select_bus_width(card);
>>> - if (!err) {
>>> + if (err > 0) {
>>
>> As pointed out in the review by Björn, to restore the old behaviour we
>> should check for "err >= 0".
>> No need to send a new patch, I can amend the current version.
>>
>>> err = mmc_select_hs_ddr(card);
>>> if (err)
>>> goto free_card;
>>> --
>>> 2.8.1
>>>
>>
>> Finally, I am a little concerned about the commit 287980e49ffc
>> ("remove lots of IS_ERR_VALUE abuses") which introduced this
>> regression.
>>
>> Surprisingly the IS_ERR_VALUE():s aren't being replaced by equivalent
>> checks, so perhaps there a more regressions. Moreover, I wonder why I
>> wasn't being on cc/to list when this patch was submitted a few days
>> ago, perhaps my review could prevented the regression from even
>> happen.
>>
>> Anyway, let's fix this now! I will pick up $subject patch as fix asap...
>>
>> and Arnd, can you please double-check that the commit 287980e49ffc
>> doesn’t seems to regress anything else!?
>
> If only the 287980e49ffc could sit in linux-next for few days before
> reaching v4.7-rc1... Could you please pick up the fix soon? Maybe
> directly by Linus?
The fix has already been applied and published through my mmc tree. I
am waiting for reports from kernelci, assuming those will be okay, I
will send a PR tomorrow so it should reach rc2.
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
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
