On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 11:54, Bean Huo <huobean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 10:13 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > }
> > > + /*
> > > + * In case CQE is enabled, the timeout will be set a
> > > maximum timeout in
> > > + * sdhci_cqe_enable(), so, no need to go through the below
> > > algorithm.
> > > + */
> > > + if (host->cqe_enabled)
> >
> >
> > I don't think this is a good idea. For example, host->cqe_enabled is
> >
> > set for the hsq case well.
>
> Uffe,
>
> My apologies for this, I forgot to check hsq, hsq will call
> sdhci_send_command() as well.
>
>
> How about changing it to this?
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index 240c5af793dc..7235e398ef93 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -649,6 +649,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_wait_for_cmd);
> void mmc_set_data_timeout(struct mmc_data *data, const struct mmc_card
> *card)
> {
> unsigned int mult;
> + struct mmc_host *host = card->host;
>
> /*
> * SDIO cards only define an upper 1 s limit on access.
> @@ -659,6 +660,13 @@ void mmc_set_data_timeout(struct mmc_data *data,
> const struct mmc_card *card)
> return;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * For the CQE use case, the data transfer timeout will be set
> a maximum
> + * timeout value in HW timer in function sdhci_cqe_enable(),
> so, no need
> + * to go through the below algorithm.
> + */
> + if (host->cqe_enabled && !host->hsq_enabled)
> + return;
Are you really sure the timeout isn't used (or could make sense to be
used for new cases)?
For example, we also have mtk-sd, which doesn't make use of sdhci_cqe_enable().
> /*
> * SD cards use a 100 multiplier rather than 10
> */
>
> I have another timeout change associated with data transfer as well, if
> this change is acceptible, I will submit it with that together.
>
> Kind regards,
> Bean
>
Kind regards
Uffe
