On 12 April 2018 at 10:14, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018/4/12 15:58, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> On 12 April 2018 at 09:34, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>
>>> On 2018/4/12 14:32, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 April 2018 at 03:20, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow to use tunable delay before detecting card after card is inserted
>>>>> either from firmware, or argument passing to mmc_gpiod_request_cd().
>>>>> The
>>>>> default value is 200ms as before, if cd-delay-ms isn't present but
>>>>> using
>>>>> mmc_gpiod_request_cd() to request slot-gpio interrupt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly why doesn't the 200 ms delay works?
>>>>
>>>> It seems like the proper method is instead to use a gpio debouncing
>>>> time. mmc-slot-gpio already deals with that, but we are defaulting to
>>>> use zero as debounce period, when mmc_gpiod_request_cd() is called
>>>> from mmc_of_parse().
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed we was defauting to use zero there, but that's no key point
>>> for me to use another delay. That being said not all platforms support
>>> gpio debounce, then gpiod_set_debounce() just returns -ENOTSUPP. So
>>
>>
>> Right, because the HW lacks support or because the gpio driver hasn't
>> implemented support for it?
>
>
> yep, on my platforms, the HW lacks support for that.
OK.
>
>>
>>> mmc_of_parse uses zero debounce period for mmc_gpiod_request_cd() is
>>> fine,otherwise mmc_gpiod_request_cd() should be improved to deal with
>>> failure of gpiod_set_debounce().
>>
>>
>> Right, that may be an option.
>>
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> mmc_of_parse()
>>> --> mmc_gpiod_request_cd(200ms debounce peroid) {
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> if (debounce)
>>> gpiod_set_debounce(desc, debounce);
>>>
>>> if (gpio_invert)
>>> *gpio_invert = !gpiod_is_active_low(desc);
>>>
>>> ctx->override_cd_active_level = override_active_level;
>>> ctx->cd_gpio = desc;
>>> /* Software debounce */
>>> ctx->cd_delay_ms = max_t(unsigned int, debounce, 200);
>>>
>>> }
>>
>>
>> Huh, not really sure I get the above. Perhaps if you send a proper
>> patch instead, it becomes easier.
>>
>> However if I understand correctly, you are suggesting to use a 200 ms
>> default debounce value - and in case that is succeeded to be set for
>> the GPIO, then we don't need the delay when scheduling the detect
>> work. No?
>>
>> On top of that, you want the debounce value to come from DT?
>
>
> In case the debounce is passed on from the caller, it means the caller
> drivers want it. So we firstly try it by using gpio debounce, but anyway we
> could fall back to use software debounce method, namely
> mmc_detect_change(host, msecs_to_jiffies(ctx->cd_delay_ms));
Make sense.
>
> ctx->cd_delay_ms = max_t(unsigned int, debounce, 200) could make sure
> we at least have a basic 200ms delay which keeps consistent with current
> code. But a longer delay is better if the caller ask it via debounce
> argument.
I am not sure we want a longer timeout, unless explicitly requested.
But perhaps that is what your are suggesting.
>
> I will post v2 for that if the above makes sense to you. :)
Go ahead and I will review!
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
