Hi,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:30 AM Marten Lindahl <martenli@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:44:16PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:51 AM Marten Lindahl <martenli@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:29:46AM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Doug!
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 8:09 AM Mårten Lindahl <marten.lindahl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The TMOUT register is always set with a full value for every transfer,
> > > > > which (with a 200MHz clock) will give a full DRTO of ~84 milliseconds.
> > > > > This is normally good enough to complete the request, but setting a full
> > > > > value makes it impossible to test shorter timeouts, when for example
> > > > > testing data read times on different SD cards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a function to set any value smaller than the maximum of 0xFFFFFF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mårten Lindahl <marten.lindahl@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > v2:
> > > > > - Calculate new value before checking boundaries
> > > > > - Include CLKDIV register to get proper value
> > > > >
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > - Use 'if-else' instead of 'goto'
> > > > > - Don't touch response field when maximize data field
> > > > >
> > > > > v4:
> > > > > - Prevent 32bit divider overflow by splitting the operation
> > > > > - Changed %06x to %#08x as suggested by Doug
> > > > > - Rephrased commit msg as suggested by Doug
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > > > > index d977f34f6b55..8e9d33e1b96c 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> > > > > @@ -1283,6 +1283,32 @@ static void dw_mci_setup_bus(struct dw_mci_slot *slot, bool force_clkinit)
> > > > > mci_writel(host, CTYPE, (slot->ctype << slot->id));
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void dw_mci_set_data_timeout(struct dw_mci *host,
> > > > > + unsigned int timeout_ns)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + unsigned int clk_div, tmp, tmout;
> > > >
> > > > didn't notice before, but nit that I usually make it a policy that
> > > > things that represent cpu registers are the "sized" types. Thus I'd
> > > > rather see these locals as u32 even though the parameter (which
> > > > represents a logical value and not a CPU register) stays as "unsigned
> > > > int").
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, will fix.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + clk_div = (mci_readl(host, CLKDIV) & 0xFF) * 2;
> > > > > + if (clk_div == 0)
> > > > > + clk_div = 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + tmp = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)timeout_ns * host->bus_hz, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > > + tmp = DIV_ROUND_UP(tmp, clk_div);
> > > >
> > > > I guess in some extreme cases you still have an overflow. Not sure how
> > > > many people really use "div", but...
> > > >
> > > > The case I'm thinking of is if the timeout is 80 ms, the bus_hz is 200
> > > > MHz, and clk_div is 20 (register contains 10). I think that would mean
> > > > you're feeding the controller a 4GHz clock which it probably couldn't
> > > > _really_ handle, so maybe this isn't super realistic. In any case, I
> > > > think the first statement would be the equivalent of 80 * 200MHz =
> > > > 0x3b9aca000 and that blows out the 32-bit "tmp" variable.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry but I fail to follow your calculation here. With 80ms timeout
> > > and 200MHz bus_hz, I get:
> > >
> > > 80000000 * 200000000 / 1000000000 = 0xF42400
> >
> > Sorry, it's just my brain not working properly. Yeah, I think you were
> > fine assuming it was 32-bit. It seems terribly unlikely that bus_hz
> > could be anywhere approaching 32-bit max. Even if it was, the timeout
> > is documented to be max on the order of 80 ms:
> >
> > /* data timeout (in ns, max 80ms) */
> >
> > ...and even if that's wrong and it's 800 ms _and_ bus_hz is the
> > absurdly large 0xffffffff then we still don't timeout.
> >
> > Sorry for getting that wrong. :(
>
> No problem. Reviews are for twisting and turning the code.
>
> To twist it even more, there is no real need to use DIV_ROUND_UP(_ULL)
> on the clkdiv division right? I mean the round up has already been made,
> and it shouldn't be needed twice?
>
> So,
> tmp = DIV_ROUND_UP_(ULL)(tmp, clk_div);
>
> could be a
>
> tmp /= clk_div;
I think you still need the round up, but I wouldn't swear to it.
You've divided by one value, but not the other and each division could
separately need rounding.
-Doug
