Hi Uffe, On 20/11/18 2:54 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 7 November 2018 at 09:47, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> That also happens to be one of the cards we deploy; However i did >>> wonder about adding a quirk but decided against it as it was not clear >>> to me from the specification that CACHE ON really is meant to complete >>> within GENERIC_CMD6_TIMEOUT. That and i fret about ending up in hit-a- >>> mole games as the failure is really quite tedious (boot failure). >> >> I agree that we should use the more defensive variant as a default. I >> mean there should be no performance regression since most cards will >> respond just faster, or? The only downside I could see is that we might >> miss a real timeout with no bounds set and might get stuck? > > Well, you have a point, but still it's kind of nice to know which > cards are behaving well and which ones that doesn't. Hence I think I > prefer to stick using a quirk, unless you have a strong opinion. > > Note that, in this case we can use CMD13 to poll for busy, which then > means it also works for those hosts that doesn't support HW busy > detection, without getting additional delays. If this hasn't been the > case, we must be using a quirk, but now we are more free to choose. > >> Maybe it is >> worth contacting eMMC spec people to at least know what is the expected >> behaviour? > > According to the spec, the GENERIC_CMD6_TIMEOUT should be sufficient. > So this card is not conforming to the spec, I think it's as simple as > that. > Is the QUIRK patch acceptable as it is or do you require some sort of errata from the card manufacturers? Thanks, Faiz
