On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 09:38, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote: > > hi Ulf > > Just a "gentleman ping" about the rest of series. > "mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant" Thanks! It's been a busy period and I am currently traveling. My plan is to look at in detail beginning of next week when get back home. I hope that's okay. Kind regards Uffe > > Regards > Ludo > > On 5/3/19 3:29 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 14:06, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 4/30/19 1:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 09:46, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant. > >>>> Some adaptations are required: > >>>> -Avoid to check and poll busy status when is not expected. > >>>> -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are > >>>> different. > >>>> -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register. > >>>> > >>>> V2: > >>>> -mmci_cmd_irq cleanup in separate patch. > >>>> -simplify the busy_detect_flag exclude > >>>> -replace sdmmc specific comment in > >>>> "mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq" > >>>> to focus on common behavior > >>>> > >>>> Ludovic Barre (5): > >>>> mmc: mmci: cleanup mmci_cmd_irq for busy detect feature > >>>> mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq > >>>> mmc: mmci: fix clear of busy detect status > >>>> mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature > >>>> mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant > >>>> > >>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > >>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++ > >>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.7.4 > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ludovic, just wanted to let you know that I am reviewing and testing > >>> this series. > >>> > >>> However, while running some tests on Ux500 for validating the busy > >>> detection code, even without your series applied, I encounter some odd > >>> behaviors. I am looking into the problem to understand better and will > >>> let you know as soon as I have some more data to share. > >> > >> Oops, don't hesitate to share your status, if I could help. > > > > Thanks! Good and bad news here, then. > > > > I now understand what is going on - and there is certainly room for > > improvements here, but more importantly the actual mmci busy detection > > works as expected. > > > > When it comes to improvements, the main issue I have found is how we > > treat DATA WRITES. In many cases we simply don't use the HW busy > > detection at all, but instead rely on the mmc core to send CMD13 in a > > loop to poll. Well, then if the polling would have consisted of a > > couple of CMD13s that wouldn't be an issue, but my observations is > > rather that the numbers of CMD13 sent to poll is in the range or > > hundreds/thousands - per each WRITE request! > > > > I am going to send a patch (or two) that improves the behavior. It > > might even involve changing parts in core layer, not sure how the end > > result will look like yet. > > > > In any case, I have applied patch 1 and patch2 for next, as the tests > > turned out well at my side. I also took the liberty of updating some > > of the comments/changelogs, please have look and tell if there is > > something you want to change. > > > > I will continue with the rest of series next week. > > > > Kind regards > > Uffe > >
