On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 18:52, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 09:23:39AM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote: > > > > On 4/19/20 12:20 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:14:01PM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote: > > > > This series includes manually backported changes that implements Tegra > > > > specific timeout callback to switch between finite and infinite HW busy > > > > detection wait modes. > > > > > > > > sdhci-tegra driver patch implements set_timeout callback based on one of > > > > the sdhci host driver patch that refactors sdhci_set_timeout and allows > > > > drivers to call __sdhci_set_timeout with their timeout callback > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > Both of these patches are manually backported in this series. > > > Is this a bugfix or a new feature? I can't tell, but it feels like it's > > > a new feature. What's wrong with just using the 5.4.y kernel tree? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > Ulf recent patches for increased timeout adds capability > > MMC_CAP_NEED_RSP_BUSY for sdhci-tegra as well. > > > > So, it will always use R1B for R1B type commands so there are no known bugs > > or failures with mmc devices we use on our platforms. > > I have no idea what this means, sorry. > > > So, we can treat this patch as an improvement for long operation commands > > where HW will wait as long as device is busy. > > Ok, so this isn't a regression and can't match the stable kernel rules, > sorry. Let me help to clarify. This isn't a regression, correct. However, the patch fixes a long outstanding bug for sdhci-tegra. For some SD/MMC commands, the mmc core may provide a long busy timeout trusting the mmc host to cope with it. It has turned out that sdhci-tegra didn't, thus it may report a cmd-timeout error, while in fact it shouldn't. I believe that is what the small series of patches should be addressing. Kind regards Uffe
