Hi Philip, On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:54:35AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote: > Rather then special case busy etc .. lets just use the max value.
OK. > > Did not remove BROKEN_TIMEOUT QUIRK so existing code will compile > we can remove this once existing platform drivers delete usage and get > quirk back. If we wait for that, we'll probably wait till eternity ;) I'd vote that removing the quirk should be part of the patch. > > Patch starts after ==== > ===== The usual nomenclature is that such comments simply go between '---' and the diffstat. Most tools are prepared for this... > The card/host controller may sometimes return a value that is > too low and cause the h/w to timeout a transfer that would have > worked. Using the maximum value avoids this. > > Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity <[email protected]> > --- ... to handle them here. > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 48 ++++----------------------------------------- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 655617c..dd99da8 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -592,53 +592,15 @@ static void sdhci_adma_table_post(struct sdhci_host > *host, > data->sg_len, direction); > } > > -static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_data *data) > +static inline u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(void) > { > - u8 count; > - unsigned target_timeout, current_timeout; > - > /* > - * If the host controller provides us with an incorrect timeout > - * value, just skip the check and use 0xE. The hardware may take > + * The host controller/card can provide us with an incorrect timeout > + * value, just use the maximum value 0xE. The hardware may take > * longer to time out, but that's much better than having a too-short > * timeout value. > */ > - if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_TIMEOUT_VAL) > - return 0xE; > - > - /* timeout in us */ > - target_timeout = data->timeout_ns / 1000 + > - data->timeout_clks / host->clock; > - > - if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK) > - host->timeout_clk = host->clock / 1000; This quirk could go then as well? > - > - /* > - * Figure out needed cycles. > - * We do this in steps in order to fit inside a 32 bit int. > - * The first step is the minimum timeout, which will have a > - * minimum resolution of 6 bits: > - * (1) 2^13*1000 > 2^22, > - * (2) host->timeout_clk < 2^16 > - * => > - * (1) / (2) > 2^6 > - */ > - count = 0; > - current_timeout = (1 << 13) * 1000 / host->timeout_clk; > - while (current_timeout < target_timeout) { > - count++; > - current_timeout <<= 1; > - if (count >= 0xF) > - break; > - } > - > - if (count >= 0xF) { > - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Too large timeout requested!\n", > - mmc_hostname(host->mmc)); > - count = 0xE; > - } > - > - return count; > + return 0xE; Why don't you remove the function entirely? > } > > static void sdhci_set_transfer_irqs(struct sdhci_host *host) > @@ -671,7 +633,7 @@ static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, > struct mmc_data *data) > host->data = data; > host->data_early = 0; > > - count = sdhci_calc_timeout(host, data); > + count = sdhci_calc_timeout(); > sdhci_writeb(host, count, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL); > > if (host->flags & (SDHCI_USE_SDMA | SDHCI_USE_ADMA)) Thanks, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
