On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Douglas Anderson >> <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Previous PHY code waited a fixed amount of time for the DLL to lock at >>> power on time. Unfortunately, the time for the DLL to lock is actually >>> a bit more dynamic and can be longer if the card clock is slower. >>> >>> Instead of waiting a fixed 30 us, let's now dynamically wait until the >>> lock bit gets set. We'll wait up to 10 ms which should be OK even if >>> the card clock is at the super slow 100 kHz. >>> >> >> 10 ms active delay (no sleep) is actually quite long. Can this code sleep ? > > It is expected that in nearly all cases it will be much shorter than > 10ms. The longest expected (at 400kHz) is 1.3 ms and we should only > be probing down to 300, 200, 100 kHz if we are having trouble > communicating. When running at a normal speed (50 MHz, 100 MHz, etc) > it should be much smaller and closer to 10 us or less. We could still > try to sleep in some of these cases, but IMHO the extra code > complexity for something like this that should happen very > infrequently (only at bootup or if we decide to re-tune) is probably > not worth it. Also note that at boot eMMC is (probably) on the > critical path, so there may be some boot speed benefits to continuing > as quickly as possible. > Makes sense. Thanks, Guenter -- 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
