On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 10:32, Paul Fertser <fercerpav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Ulf, > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:23:28AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > > index f5dedb7f9b27..9adf735391fa 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > > @@ -426,8 +426,7 @@ static int mmc_decode_ext_csd(struct mmc_card *card, u8 *ext_csd) > > > /* EXT_CSD value is in units of 10ms, but we store in ms */ > > > card->ext_csd.part_time = 10 * ext_csd[EXT_CSD_PART_SWITCH_TIME]; > > > /* Some eMMC set the value too low so set a minimum */ > > > - if (card->ext_csd.part_time && > > > - card->ext_csd.part_time < MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME) > > > + if (card->ext_csd.part_time < MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME) > > > card->ext_csd.part_time = MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME; > > > > > > /* Sleep / awake timeout in 100ns units */ > > > > > > I do not see any more warnings on my system. > > > > That looks like the correct fix to the problem. Do you want to send a > > proper patch that I can pick up or do you prefer if help to do it? > > I've sent this as a diff precisely because 1c447116d017 was so > explicit about special-casing zero ext_csd timeout value, so I thought > probably Adrian can provide the rationale for that. I'd prefer to wait > for his feedback before sending a formal patch. Does this make sense? I think the rationale was not to set a default timeout if the value from the register is zero (because there is a fallback in __mmc_switch() for this case). The problem with the fallback is that it's one timeout value for all types of commands. It's better to specify a default value, based upon what command it's for - along the line of what your diff suggests. Kind regards Uffe
