On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 13:26, Michael Wu <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/25/2023 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > - trimmed cc-list, + Sartak Garg > > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 10:00, Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen666@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 08:04, Michael Wu <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Entering the recovery system itself indicates a transmission error. > >>> In this situation, we intend to execute the mmc_blk_reset function > >>> to clear any anomalies that may be caused by errors. We have previously > >>> discussed with several MMC device manufacturers, and they expressed > >>> their desire for us to reset the device when errors occur to ensure > >>> stable operation. We aim to make this code compatible with all devices > >>> and ensure its stable performance, so we would like to add this patch > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wu <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> like: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/20220603051534.22672-1-quic_sartgarg@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Looks like this series didn't make it. I was awaiting a rebase from > > Sartak to apply it, but apparently something got in his way for a new > > submission. > > > >> > >> You should enable it in the vendor host. > > > > Yes! We don't want unused code in the core. We need a user of it too. > > > > May I suggest that you pick up Sartak's patch for the core and thus > > add another patch for the host driver you care about and then > > re-submit it as a small series. > > > > Kind regards > > Uffe > > > >> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 2 +- > >>> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 1 + > >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>> index b5b414a71e0b..29fbe0ddeadb 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>> @@ -1503,7 +1503,7 @@ void mmc_blk_cqe_recovery(struct mmc_queue *mq) > >>> pr_debug("%s: CQE recovery start\n", mmc_hostname(host)); > >>> > >>> err = mmc_cqe_recovery(host); > >>> - if (err) > >>> + if (err || host->cqe_recovery_reset_always) > >>> mmc_blk_reset(mq->blkdata, host, MMC_BLK_CQE_RECOVERY); > >>> mmc_blk_reset_success(mq->blkdata, MMC_BLK_CQE_RECOVERY); > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h > >>> index 62a6847a3b6f..f578541a06b5 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h > >>> @@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ struct mmc_host { > >>> int cqe_qdepth; > >>> bool cqe_enabled; > >>> bool cqe_on; > >>> + bool cqe_recovery_reset_always; > >>> > >>> /* Inline encryption support */ > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_MMC_CRYPTO > >>> -- > >>> 2.29.0 > >>> > Dear Ulf, > I have tested Sartak's patch and it is also able to resolve the issue we > are currently facing. Therefore, I would like to inquire about the > expected timeline for merging Sartak's patch. Hi Michael, There is another series [1] that Adrian is working on that is related to the problem in $subject patch. Perhaps you can take a look and try it out instead of Sartak's patch, which seems to have gotten stalled. Kind regards Uffe [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231103084720.6886-1-adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx/
