On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:29 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > Am 12.10.2017 um 22:05 schrieb Jerome Brunet: > > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 21:49 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > > > The result of the tuning does not depends on starting point, so I don't > > > > really > > > > understand how it would significantly change things. > > > > > > > > > > I think it depends on the tx phase starting point. > > > > > > > If the result of the tuning is not independent of the starting, instead of > > just > > telling me, it is fairly easy for you to give actual result, like I asked > > you: > > > > With hs200@200 and tx phase starting point 0 I get the following with no > further CRC errors. > > [ 0.726572] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: d0074000.mmc#rx phase/delay > tunning... > [ 0.728664] hctosys: unable to open rtc device (rtc0) > [ 0.728827] USB_OTG_PWR: disabling > [ 0.728831] TFLASH_VDD: disabling > [ 0.728833] TF_IO: disabling > [ 0.753183] Waiting for root device /dev/mmcblk0p1... > [ 0.754352] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: success with phase: 270 > [ 0.758386] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: d0074000.mmc#tx phase/delay > tunning... > [ 0.768050] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: success with phase: 120 > [ 0.771235] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: d0074000.mmc#rx phase/delay > tunning... > [ 0.780902] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: success with phase: 0 > [ 0.784036] mmc0: new HS200 MMC card at address 0001 > [ 0.789090] mmcblk0: mmc0:0001 DJNB4R 116 GiB > [ 0.793328] mmcblk0boot0: mmc0:0001 DJNB4R partition 1 4.00 MiB > [ 0.799198] mmcblk0boot1: mmc0:0001 DJNB4R partition 2 4.00 MiB > [ 0.805048] mmcblk0rpmb: mmc0:0001 DJNB4R partition 3 4.00 MiB, chardev > (249:0) > [ 0.812799] mmcblk0: response CRC error sending r/w cmd command, card > status 0x900 > [ 0.819727] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: d0074000.mmc#tx phase/delay > tunning... > [ 0.827007] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: success with phase: 210 > [ 0.832559] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: d0074000.mmc#rx phase/delay > tunning... > [ 0.839848] meson-gx-mmc d0074000.mmc: success with phase: 0 > > > > > > Ok, starting from Rx:0 Tx:270 then tuning gives you Tx:300 Rx:90 > > > > And what different did it gives you starting Rx:0/Tx:0 ? > > > > And if the result are indeed vastly different, let's debug and get a real > > explanation. > > > > > Tuning does: > > > rx phase tuning > > > tx phase tuning > > > rx phase tuning > > > > > > Result of each step depends on result of previous step. > > > > Again, we don't agree. > > > > > So also the initial > > > rx phase tuning result depends on the starting point of tx phase. > > > > The first Rx tuning is there only to get a sane starting point for the tx > > tuning > > ,as explained in the code. This is the reason why is not done when re- > > tuning. > > Heiner, This is the same story again and again ! Getting clear status is just really painful. It's like half the message is ignored each time. I can clearly see that, this result comes from your hack, and this hack makes no sense. I don't care about this result. This is not what I asked. What I asked is: 1) From linux-next what is tuning result in hs200@200Mhz with the starting : * Rx:0/Tx:270/Core:180 (current setting) * Rx:0/Tx:0/Core:180 (the setting you keep on mentioning) Please don't send your logs: the phase set are displayed in debugfs/clk?clk_summary 2) Try to come up with a real explanation: "It just happens ..." is not an explanation. > > > > > > -- 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
