On 26/02/2020 15:21, Ulf Hansson wrote: > + Anders, Kishon > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:24, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 25/02/2020 14:26, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> However, from the core point of view, the response is still requested, >>> only that we don't want the driver to wait for the card to stop >>> signaling busy. Instead we want to deal with that via "polling" from >>> the core. >>> >>> This is a rather worrying behaviour, as it seems like the host driver >>> doesn't really follow this expectations from the core point of view. >>> And mmc_flush_cache() is not the only case, as we have erase, bkops, >>> sanitize, etc. Are all these working or not really well tested? >> >> I don't believe that they are well tested. We have a simple test to >> mount an eMMC partition, create a file, check the contents, remove the >> file and unmount. The timeouts always occur during unmounting. >> >>> Earlier, before my three patches, if the provided timeout_ms parameter >>> to __mmc_switch() was zero, which was the case for >>> mmc_mmc_flush_cache() - this lead to that __mmc_switch() simply >>> ignored validating host->max_busy_timeout, which was wrong. In any >>> case, this also meant that an R1B response was always used for >>> mmc_flush_cache(), as you also indicated above. Perhaps this is the >>> critical part where things can go wrong. >>> >>> BTW, have you tried erase commands for sdhci tegra driver? If those >>> are working fine, do you have any special treatments for these? >> >> That I am not sure, but I will check. > > Great, thanks. Looking forward to your report. So no I don't believe that we have explicitly tried erase commands and no there is nothing special that we are doing for erase. > So, from my side, me and Anders Roxell, have been collaborating on > testing the behaviour on a TI Beagleboard x15 (remotely with limited > debug options), which is using the sdhci-omap variant. I am trying to > get hold of an Nvidia jetson-TX2, but not found one yet. These are the > conclusions from the observed behaviour on the Beagleboard for the > CMD6 cache flush command. > > First, the reported host->max_busy_timeout is 2581 (ms) for the > sdhci-omap driver in this configuration. > > 1. As we all know by now, the cache flush command (CMD6) fails with > -110 currently. This is when MMC_CACHE_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_MS is set to 30 * > 1000 (30s), which means __mmc_switch() drops the MMC_RSP_BUSY flag > from the command. > > 2. Changing the MMC_CACHE_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_MS to 2000 (2s), means that > the MMC_RSP_BUSY flag becomes set by __mmc_switch, because of the > timeout_ms parameter is less than max_busy_timeout (2000 < 2581). > Then everything works fine. > > 3. Updating the code to again use 30s as the > MMC_CACHE_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_MS, but instead forcing the MMC_RSP_BUSY to be > set, even when the timeout_ms becomes greater than max_busy_timeout. > This also works fine. > > Clearly this indicates a problem that I think needs to be addressed in > the sdhci driver. However, of course I can revert the three discussed > patches to fix the problem, but that would only hide the issues and I > am sure we would then get back to this issue, sooner or later. > > To fix the problem in the sdhci driver, I would appreciate if someone > from TI and Nvidia can step in to help, as I don't have the HW on my > desk. OK, let me check to see who can help from our side. Cheers Jon -- nvpublic
