> >> [...] >> >>>>> + if (!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_CRC)) >>>>> + send |= MESON_MX_SDIO_SEND_RESP_WITHOUT_CRC7; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) >>>>> + send |= MESON_MX_SDIO_SEND_CHECK_DAT0_BUSY; >>>> >>>> In case the controller has HW support of busy detection, please >>>> consider to enable MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY for this driver. Then also >>>> assign host->max_busy_timeout a good value. >>> the IRQS register has bit 4 (CMD_BUSY) - but apart from that there is >>> no other documentation (about timeout values, etc.). the vendor driver >>> also neither uses MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY nor host->max_busy_timeout >>> should I leave this as it is? >> >> Please don't just leave it as is. This is an important thing to get right. >> >> You should be able to explore this area and see how the controller >> behaves without too much of documentation. Regarding timeouts, it may >> very well be that the controller don't have a timeout, which is why >> you need a software timeout. That's not so uncommon actually. > during my experiments I've never seen an interrupt when a command > timed out (nor could I find information about a timeout register in > the documentation). do you have any pointers (like a previous mail > where you've explained) how I can "explore the controller's timeout > behavior"? Sorry, I don't have an pointers. Anyway. If you do a big erase operation on an SD card, the card should signal busy on DAT0 for a rather long time. You could probably explore how long it takes for the card to respond under those circumstances, and try both with and without MESON_MX_SDIO_SEND_CHECK_DAT0_BUSY. Of course you also need to try with and without MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY, as the core may sometimes convert R1B to R1 responses depending on that cap. [...] >> >> It shouldn't be that hard to implement, although I strongly recommend >> you to address this in a second step. In other words, I suggest you to >> drop the entire multiple slot support in the first step, then we can >> deal with that on top instead. > many thanks for the detailed explanation again! > I would be fine with dropping multiple slot support for the moment > *if* we can agree on the fact that the devicetree binding can support > multiple slots in theory (my idea here is: keep the child-nodes with > compatible = "mmc-slot" mandatory - but only allow one such child node > for now). I don't want to break DT compatibility after a few > weeks/months for a new driver. is that OK for you as well? That's fine! We already have such a binding available for some other mmc controllers. We could even consider to make that binding a generic mmc binding. [...] 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
