From: Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:22:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fd57fd63-093e-dd23-5ca4-6bd4f99ecda9@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFoZuQ+hshZpj-qjchKf7enW4ChPd=r_QhK2xtuJcSvqxQ@mail.gmail.com>
hi Ulf
On 4/23/19 3:39 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:10, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>>
>> The busy status bit could occurred even if no busy response is
>> expected (example cmd11). On sdmmc variant, the busy_detect_flag
>> reflects inverted value of d0 state, it's sampled at the end of a
>> CMD response and a second time 2 clk cycles after the CMD response.
>> To avoid a fake busy, the busy status could be checked and polled
>> only if the command has RSP_BUSY flag.
>
> I would appreciate a better explanation of what this patch really changes.
>
> The above is giving some background to the behavior of sdmmc variant,
> but at this point that variant doesn't even have the
> ->variant->busy_detect flag set.
>
Yes, I will try to explain more and focus on common behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> index 387ff14..4901b73 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> @@ -1220,12 +1220,13 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>> unsigned int status)
>> {
>> void __iomem *base = host->base;
>> - bool sbc;
>> + bool sbc, busy_resp;
>>
>> if (!cmd)
>> return;
>>
>> sbc = (cmd == host->mrq->sbc);
>> + busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
>>
>> /*
>> * We need to be one of these interrupts to be considered worth
>> @@ -1239,8 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>> /*
>> * ST Micro variant: handle busy detection.
>> */
>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect) {
>> - bool busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
>> + if (busy_resp && host->variant->busy_detect) {
>>
>> /* We are busy with a command, return */
>> if (host->busy_status &&
>> @@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>> * that the special busy status bit is still set before
>> * proceeding.
>> */
>> - if (!host->busy_status && busy_resp &&
>> + if (!host->busy_status &&
>> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
>> (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>
> All the changes above makes perfect sense to me, but looks more like a
> cleanup of the code, rather than actually changing the behavior.
yes, few changing (this just avoid to enter in
"if (host->variant->busy_detect)") at each time.
I could move this part in cleanup patch (before this patch)
>
>>
>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct mmci_host *host = dev_id;
>> u32 status;
>> + bool busy_resp;
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> spin_lock(&host->lock);
>> @@ -1550,9 +1551,15 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Don't poll for busy completion in irq context.
>> + * Don't poll for:
>> + * -busy completion in irq context.
>> + * -no busy response expected.
>> */
>> - if (host->variant->busy_detect && host->busy_status)
>> + busy_resp = host->cmd ?
>> + !!(host->cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) : false;
>
> This doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something.
>
> host->busy_status is being updated by mmci_cmd_irq() and only when
> MMC_RSP_BUSY is set for the command in flight. In other words,
> checking for MMC_RSP_BUSY here as well is redundant. No?
In mmci_irq the "do while" loops until the status is totally cleared.
Today (for variant with busy_detect option), the status busy_detect_flag
is excluded only while busy_status period (command with MMC_RSP_BUSY and
while busy line is low => "busy_status=1")
On SDMMC variant I noticed that busy_detect_flag status could be enabled
even if the command is not MMC_RSP_BUSY, for example sdmmc variant stay
in loop while cmd11 voltage switch.
So I wish extend host->variant->busy_detect_flag exclusion for all
commands which is not a MMC_RSP_BUSY. I suppose that other variants
could have the same behavior, and else there is no impact, normally.
>
>> +
>> + if (host->variant->busy_detect &&
>> + (!busy_resp || host->busy_status))
>> status &= ~host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
>>
>> ret = 1;
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-25 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-05 16:10 [PATCH 0/4] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant Ludovic Barre
2019-03-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling Ludovic Barre
2019-03-06 9:00 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-03-06 9:04 ` Ludovic BARRE
2019-03-06 9:49 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-03-06 10:08 ` Ludovic BARRE
2019-03-07 9:39 ` Linus Walleij
2019-04-23 13:39 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-04-25 9:22 ` Ludovic BARRE [this message]
2019-04-25 10:08 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-04-25 14:09 ` Ludovic BARRE
2019-04-25 21:32 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-03-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/4] mmc: mmci: fix clear of busy detect status Ludovic Barre
2019-03-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/4] mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature Ludovic Barre
2019-03-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 4/4] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant Ludovic Barre
2019-04-11 12:37 ` [PATCH 0/4] " Ludovic BARRE
2019-04-11 13:29 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-04-11 13:51 ` Ludovic BARRE
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fd57fd63-093e-dd23-5ca4-6bd4f99ecda9@st.com \
--to=ludovic.barre@st.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@st.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).