Hi,
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Shawn Lin wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2017/9/28 4:56, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>
>> In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
>> command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
>> hardware command
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Shawn Lin wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2017/9/28 4:56, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>
>> In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
>> command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
>> hardware command timeout value.
Hi
On 2017/9/28 4:56, Douglas Anderson wrote:
In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
hardware command timeout value. Unfortunately that calculation isn't
quite correct in all cases. It used
Hi
On 2017/9/28 4:56, Douglas Anderson wrote:
In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
hardware command timeout value. Unfortunately that calculation isn't
quite correct in all cases. It used
In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
hardware command timeout value. Unfortunately that calculation isn't
quite correct in all cases. It used "bus_hz" but, as far as I can
tell, it's supposed to use
In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
hardware command timeout value. Unfortunately that calculation isn't
quite correct in all cases. It used "bus_hz" but, as far as I can
tell, it's supposed to use
6 matches
Mail list logo