On 21/06/21 11:11 am, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On 21/06/21 10:54 am, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 21/06/21 10:32 am, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/21/2021 9:15 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Can we clarify, is the only problem that the error message is confusing?
>>>
>>> AFAICT there are no ill effects of the retune failing apart from the error message.
>>>
>>
>> So maybe the simplest thing to do is just amend the message:
>> e.g.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> index 4e52eb14198a..5cbf05e331c4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> @@ -936,13 +936,22 @@ int mmc_execute_tuning(struct mmc_card *card)
>> opcode = MMC_SEND_TUNING_BLOCK;
>>
>> err = host->ops->execute_tuning(host, opcode);
>> -
>> if (err)
>> - pr_err("%s: tuning execution failed: %d\n",
>> - mmc_hostname(host), err);
>> - else
>> - mmc_retune_enable(host);
>> + goto out_err;
>> +
>> + mmc_retune_enable(host);
>>
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +out_err:
>> + if (mmc_card_is_removable(host)) {
>> + if (err != -ENOMEDIUM)
>> + pr_err("%s: tuning execution failed: %d (this is normal if card removed)\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(host), err);
>
> Hmm, an error message saying "this is normal" doesn't look like a good
> option to me. Can't we surpress the message somehow or even avoid tuning
> somehow if the card is removed? Sorry, I can't look this up myself right
> now, working on another task today.
With the code above, if the host controller knows the card has been
removed, it can return -ENOMEDIUM from ->execute_tuning() to suppress
the message.
Otherwise, you need to introduce a new card state or flag to indicate
that the card may not be present, and use that to suppress the message.
> >> + } else {
>> + pr_err("%s: tuning execution failed: %d\n",
>> + mmc_hostname(host), err);
>> + }
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>>
>> >
