On 23/01/14 16:11, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 23 January 2014 11:10, Adrian Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 22/01/14 17:00, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> If the host controller supports busy detection in HW, we expect the
>>> MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY to be set. Likewise the corresponding
>>> host->max_busy_timeout shall reflect the maximum busy detection timeout
>>> supported by the host. A timeout set to zero, is interpreted as the
>>> host supports whatever timeout the mmc core provides it with.
>>>
>>> Previously we expected a host that supported MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY to
>>> cope with any timeout, which just isn't feasible due to HW limitations.
>>>
>>> For most switch operations, R1B responses are expected and thus we need
>>> to check for busy detection completion. To cope with cases where the
>>> requested busy detection timeout is greater than what the host are able
>>> to support, we fallback to use a R1 response instead. This will prevent
>>> the host from doing HW busy detection.
>>>
>>> In those cases busy detection completion is handled by polling the for
>>> the card's status using CMD13, which is the same mechanism used when
>>> the host doesn't support MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c | 53
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>>> index 5e1a2cb..2e0cccb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>>> @@ -413,13 +413,31 @@ int __mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, u8 set, u8
>>> index, u8 value,
>>> unsigned int timeout_ms, bool use_busy_signal, bool
>>> send_status,
>>> bool ignore_crc)
>>> {
>>> + struct mmc_host *host;
>>
>> It would be nicer if the addition of 'host' was a separate patch. You
>> should remove the unnecessary BUG_ONs (it will oops anyway) at the same
>> time and then just do:
>>
>> struct mmc_host *host = card->host;
>
> Sure, make sense!
>
>>
>>> int err;
>>> struct mmc_command cmd = {0};
>>> unsigned long timeout;
>>> + unsigned int max_busy_timeout;
>>> u32 status = 0;
>>> + bool use_r1b_resp = true;
>>
>> This is a little confusing. Why not:
>>
>> bool use_r1b_resp = use_busy_signal;
>>
>> Although 'use_busy_signal' actually means 'wait_while_busy'.
>
> Right, that should simplify code a bit. I will update in a v2.
>
>>
>>>
>>> BUG_ON(!card);
>>> BUG_ON(!card->host);
>>> + host = card->host;
>>> +
>>> + /* Once all callers provides a timeout, remove this fallback. */
>>> + if (!timeout_ms)
>>> + timeout_ms = MMC_OPS_TIMEOUT_MS;
>>
>> A timeout of zero does not mean a very long timeout. It means an unknown
>> timeout.
>
> I guess this is a matter of definition.
JEDEC did not define GENERIC_CMD6_TIME until v4.5 so before that the timeout
is unknown. It is reasonable for the host controller drivers to select a
value that suits them rather than constrain them to some arbitrarily large
timeout.
>
> For those hosts that don't have a hw timeout, but maybe implements a
> software timeout, I thought this was more convenient. We likely then
> also need to define a "MAX_BUSY_TIMEOUT", which host drivers could
> use.
>
> Additionally, since as of today only sdhci specifies the
> max_discard_to (renamed to max_busy_timeout), I thought it make sense
> to not force other hosts to specify the timeout to keep the existing
> behaviour.
Yes max_busy_timeout of zero again means unknown.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + /* We interpret unspecified timeouts as the host can cope with all. */
>>> + max_busy_timeout = host->max_busy_timeout ?
>>> + host->max_busy_timeout : timeout_ms;
>>> +
>>> + if (use_busy_signal && (host->caps & MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY) &&
>>> + (timeout_ms > max_busy_timeout))
>>> + use_r1b_resp = false;
>>> + else if (!use_busy_signal)
>>> + use_r1b_resp = false;
>>
>> Why not just check what you know:
>>
>> if (timeout_ms && host->max_busy_timeout && timeout_ms >
>> host->max_busy_timeout)
>> use_r1b_resp = false;
>>
>
> I wanted to maintain the R1B response for hosts that don't support
> MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY. With your proposal this will not be done.
>
> Given this a second thought. I think it would make sense to adapt to
> your proposal. I will update in v2.
>
>>>
>>> cmd.opcode = MMC_SWITCH;
>>> cmd.arg = (MMC_SWITCH_MODE_WRITE_BYTE << 24) |
>>> @@ -427,17 +445,25 @@ int __mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, u8 set, u8
>>> index, u8 value,
>>> (value << 8) |
>>> set;
>>> cmd.flags = MMC_CMD_AC;
>>> - if (use_busy_signal)
>>> + if (use_r1b_resp)
>>> cmd.flags |= MMC_RSP_SPI_R1B | MMC_RSP_R1B;
>>> else
>>> cmd.flags |= MMC_RSP_SPI_R1 | MMC_RSP_R1;
>>>
>>> + if ((host->caps & MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY) && use_r1b_resp) {
>>> + /* Tell the host what busy detection timeout to use. */
>>> + cmd.busy_timeout = timeout_ms;
>>> + /*
>>> + * CRC errors shall only be ignored in cases were CMD13 is
>>> used
>>> + * to poll to detect busy completion.
>>> + */
>>> + ignore_crc = false;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> - cmd.busy_timeout = timeout_ms;
>>
>> The busy_timeout should be provided for R1B i.e. this should be:
>>
>> if (use_r1b_resp)
>> cmd.busy_timeout = timeout_ms;
>>
>
> Will fix in v2, given you still think this is good approach according
> to my comment just above.
>
>>> if (index == EXT_CSD_SANITIZE_START)
>>> cmd.sanitize_busy = true;
>>>
>>> - err = mmc_wait_for_cmd(card->host, &cmd, MMC_CMD_RETRIES);
>>> + err = mmc_wait_for_cmd(host, &cmd, MMC_CMD_RETRIES);
>>> if (err)
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> @@ -445,24 +471,17 @@ int __mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, u8 set, u8
>>> index, u8 value,
>>> if (!use_busy_signal)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * CRC errors shall only be ignored in cases were CMD13 is used to
>>> poll
>>> - * to detect busy completion.
>>> - */
>>> - if (card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY)
>>> - ignore_crc = false;
>>> -
>>> /* Must check status to be sure of no errors. */
>>> - timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MMC_OPS_TIMEOUT_MS);
>>
>> This is the place to set the default timeout for the loop.
>>
>> if (!timeout_ms)
>> timeout_ms = MMC_OPS_TIMEOUT_MS
>>
>>> + timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms);
>>> do {
>>> if (send_status) {
>>> err = __mmc_send_status(card, &status, ignore_crc);
>>> if (err)
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>> - if (card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY)
>>> + if ((host->caps & MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY) && use_r1b_resp)
>>> break;
>>> - if (mmc_host_is_spi(card->host))
>>> + if (mmc_host_is_spi(host))
>>> break;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -478,18 +497,18 @@ int __mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, u8 set, u8
>>> index, u8 value,
>>> /* Timeout if the device never leaves the program state. */
>>> if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>> pr_err("%s: Card stuck in programming state! %s\n",
>>> - mmc_hostname(card->host), __func__);
>>> + mmc_hostname(host), __func__);
>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> }
>>> } while (R1_CURRENT_STATE(status) == R1_STATE_PRG);
>>>
>>> - if (mmc_host_is_spi(card->host)) {
>>> + if (mmc_host_is_spi(host)) {
>>> if (status & R1_SPI_ILLEGAL_COMMAND)
>>> return -EBADMSG;
>>> } else {
>>> if (status & 0xFDFFA000)
>>> - pr_warning("%s: unexpected status %#x after "
>>> - "switch", mmc_hostname(card->host), status);
>>> + pr_warn("%s: unexpected status %#x after switch\n",
>>> + mmc_hostname(host), status);
>>> if (status & R1_SWITCH_ERROR)
>>> return -EBADMSG;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>
> Adrian, thanks for reviewing!
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
