On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 22:57, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 15.03.2022 13:27, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > + Heiner
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 00:11, Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:13 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10.3.2022 22.56, Brian Norris wrote:
> >>>> Way back in commit 4f25580fb84d ("mmc: core: changes frequency to
> >>>> hs_max_dtr when selecting hs400es"), Rockchip engineers noticed that
> >>>> some eMMC don't respond to SEND_STATUS commands very reliably if they're
> >>>> still running at a low initial frequency. As mentioned in that commit,
> >>>> JESD84-B51 P49 suggests a sequence in which the host:
> >>>> 1. sets HS_TIMING
> >>>> 2. bumps the clock ("<= 52 MHz")
> >>>> 3. sends further commands
> >>>>
> >>>> It doesn't exactly require that we don't use a lower-than-52MHz
> >>>> frequency, but in practice, these eMMC don't like it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, the aforementioned commit got that right for HS400ES, but the
> >>>> refactoring in 53e60650f74e ("mmc: core: Allow CMD13 polling when
> >>>> switching to HS mode for mmc") messed that back up again, by reordering
> >>>> step 2 after step 3.
> >>>
> >>> That description might not be accurate.
> >>
> >> I've been struggling to track where things were working, where things
> >> were broken, and what/why Shawn's original fix was, precisely. So you
> >> may be correct in many ways :) Thanks for looking.
> >>
> >>> It looks like 4f25580fb84d did not have the intended effect because
> >>> CMD13 was already being sent by mmc_select_hs(), still before increasing
> >>> the frequency. 53e60650f74e just kept that behaviour.
> >>
> >> You may be partially right, or fully right. But anyway, I think I have
> >> some additional explanation, now that you've pointed that out: that
> >> behavior changed a bit in this commit:
> >>
> >> 08573eaf1a70 mmc: mmc: do not use CMD13 to get status after speed mode switch
> >>
> >> While that patch was merged in July 2016 and Shawn submitted his v1
> >> fix in September, there's a very good chance that a lot of his work
> >> was actually done via backports, and even if not, he may not have been
> >> testing precisely the latest -next kernel when submitting. So his fix
> >> may have worked out for _some_ near-upstream kernel he was testing in
> >> 2016, you may be correct that it didn't really work in the state it
> >> was committed to git history.
> >>
> >> This may also further explain why my attempts at bisection were rather
> >> fruitless (notwithstanding the difficulties in getting RK3399 running
> >> on that old of a kernel).
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'll see if I can improve the messaging if/when a v2 comes around.
> >>
> >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> >> ...
> >>>> @@ -1487,6 +1492,12 @@ static int mmc_select_hs200(struct mmc_card *card)
> >>>> old_timing = host->ios.timing;
> >>>> mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS200);
> >>>>
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Bump to HS frequency. Some cards don't handle SEND_STATUS
> >>>> + * reliably at the initial frequency.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + mmc_set_clock(host, card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr);
> >>>
> >>> Is card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr better than card->ext_csd.hs200_max_dtr here?
> >>
> >> I believe either worked in practice. I ended up choosing hs_max_dtr
> >> because it's lower and presumably safer. But frankly, I don't know
> >> what the Right thing to do is here, since the spec just talks about
> >> "<=", and yet f_init (which is also "<=") does not work. I think it
> >> might be like Ulf was guessing way back in the first place [1], and
> >> the key is that there is *some* increase (i.e., not using f_init).
> >>
> >> So assuming either works, would you prefer hs200_max_dtr here, since
> >> that does seem like the appropriate final rate?
> >
> > I think that makes most sense, as we are switching to that rate anyway
> > just a few cycles later in mmc_select_timing(), when it calls
> > mmc_set_bus_speed().
> >
> > That said, I have recently queued a patch that improves the
> > speed-mode-selection-fallback, when switching to HS200 mode fails [2].
> > We need to make sure this part still works as expected. I have looped
> > in Heiner who has been in the loop around this change, hopefully he
> > can help with further testing or so. Maybe $subject patch (or a new
> > version of it) can even make HS200 to work on Heiner's platform!?
> >
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAPDyKFrNp=Y3BhVE_kxtggv7Qc6m=2kef2U8Dn2Bb3ANHPYV-Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >> Re: [PATCH 3/5] mmc: core: changes frequency to hs_max_dtr when
> >> selecting hs400es
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Uffe
> >
> > [2]
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mmc/patch/20220303164522.129583-1-ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> In my specific case this patch makes no difference. My test system is a
> dirt-cheap Amlogic SoC based Android TV box. My best guess is that maybe due
> to chip shortage the vendor omitted some regulator, making the eMMC card
> refuse the switch to HS200.
> Therefore my test result doesn't speak against the proposed patch.
Thanks Heiner for confirming!
Brian, I expect you to send an updated/rebased patch that we can test
and review.
Kind regards
Uffe
