Re: [PATCH 07/11] mmc: core: Consider R1_READY_FOR_DATA as a busy indication in mmc_poll_for_busy()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2018/5/25 17:02, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 25 May 2018 at 08:18, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Per JESD85-B51, section 6.6.8.1, it says "Some Devices may require
long and unpredictable times to write a block of data. After receiving
a block  of data and completing the CRC check, the Device will begin
writing and hold the DAT0 line low. The host may poll the status of
the Device with a SEND_STATUS command(CMD13) at any time, and the
Device will respond with its status (except in Sleep state). The status
bit READY_FOR_DATA indicates whether the Device can accept new data or
not." That describes the busy condition for data write that we should
consider R1_READY_FOR_DATA as a busy indication. And R1_READY_FOR_DATA
shouldn't happen as well when doing switch and erase stuff,

Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

  drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c | 3 ++-
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
index 959b8cd..1288802 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
@@ -507,7 +507,8 @@ static int mmc_poll_for_busy(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int timeout_ms,
                                 err = mmc_send_status_error(host, status, true);
                                 if (err)
                                         return err;
-                               busy = R1_CURRENT_STATE(status) == R1_STATE_PRG;
+                               busy = R1_CURRENT_STATE(status) == R1_STATE_PRG
+                                       || !(status & R1_READY_FOR_DATA);

This makes sense, only that it may have a little impact on
performance. Thinking if R1_READY_FOR_DATA takes a little longer to be
raised rather than only de-asserting R1_STATE_PRG bit.

On this other hand, so far I don't think there are any real
performance critical callers of mmc_poll_for_busy(). That may change
if you intend to switch card_busy_detect() in block.c to use this
polling as well!?



Hmm... that's why I was not changing card_busy_detect(). It means we
need a new parameter for what busy indication the callers want, as well
as a output status. Well, I will rework it next week along with reusing
it for card_busy_detect().

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




--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux