On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 13:45, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 18/05/20 12:39 pm, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 15:53, Sarthak Garg <sartgarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Introduce a new quirk for letting vendor drivers to use reserved
> >> timeout value (0xF) in timeout control register.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sarthak Garg <sartgarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 3 ++-
> >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 5 +++++
> >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> >> index 1bb6b67..07528a9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> >> @@ -967,7 +967,8 @@ static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (count >= 0xF) {
> >> - if (!(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT))
> >> + if (!(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT) ||
> >> + !(host->quirks2 & SDHCI_QUIRK2_USE_RESERVED_MAX_TIMEOUT))
> >
> > I don't quite get how this can make your variant use 0xF rather than 0xE?
> >
> > To me it looks like an updated conditional check to print a debug message, no?
>
> Probably need to introduce host->max_timeout_count, set it to 0xE in
> sdhci_alloc_host(), and change sdhci_calc_timeout() to use it in place of
> all the 0xE and 0xF constants.
Yep, that seems like a reasonable approach to me as well.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
