On 25 May 2018 at 11:12, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 25 May 2018 at 10:59, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2018/5/25 16:42, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> >>> On 25 May 2018 at 08:17, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> In preparation for reusing mmc_poll_for_busy() to avoid duplication >>>> of code for polling busy. >>>> >>>> No functional change intended. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c | 7 ++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c >>>> index 88f34fd..4d73db4 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c >>>> @@ -447,7 +447,8 @@ int mmc_switch_status(struct mmc_card *card) >>>> } >>>> >>>> static int mmc_poll_for_busy(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int >>>> timeout_ms, >>>> - bool send_status, bool retry_crc_err, bool >>>> use_r1b_resp) >>>> + bool send_status, bool retry_crc_err, bool >>>> use_r1b_resp, >>>> + unsigned int retries) >>> >>> >>> What are the use-case for actually being able to use different amount >>> of retries for polling? >> >> >> ioctl_rpmb_card_status_poll() retry 5 times but mmc_do_erase() wants >> zero. The comment seems to imply it wants the first send_status get back >> the device status related to the last command prior to it. > > I am guessing you refer to "Do not retry else we can't see errors". > > Actually, the same thing applies to switch commands. Only the first > CMD13 will give the switch status, anyway we are trying 5 times... > > My point is, I think we shall use the kind of policy, unless there are /s/kind/same kind > good reasons not to. > > [...] > > 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
