From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: don't limit discard timeout by data line timeout Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:50:11 +0100 Message-ID: <528F6113.2070009@mentor.com> References: <1385046445-29711-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <528F4242.8040408@intel.com> <528F4D06.3080400@mentor.com> <528F5663.2050800@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:36115 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755490Ab3KVNuY (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:50:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <528F5663.2050800@intel.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Hunter Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Ed Sutter , Chris Ball On 22.11.2013 14:04, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 22/11/13 14:24, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> On 22.11.2013 12:38, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>> On 21/11/13 17:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>> JEDEC specification defines quite high erase timeout value for 300ms >>>> multiplied by erase group number, and SD Host Controller specification >>>> data line timeout may be much less, e.g. 2^13 / 52MHz ~ 160us. >>>> >>>>> From block layer and MMC perfromance perspective it is desirable that >>>> millions of erase groups are discarded at once, so there is no much >>>> sense to limit maximum erase timeout by data line timeout, if a >>>> controller handles correctly erase operation without indication of >>>> data line timeout. >>> >>> Would you explain that some more. Do you mean that: >>> a) it does not have a timeout >> >> JEDEC defines a timeout on erase/trim operations, also in >> drivers/mmc/core/core.c >> there is a reasonable enough 10 minutes limitation for discard operations. >> >>> b) it has a timeout which is less than the timeout specified by the >>> standard but the operation nevertheless completes >> >> SDHC data line timeout is enormously less than erase group timeout, and >> trivial testing shows that those two timeouts are independent, probably >> except some particular cases of controllers not known before commits >> 58d1246db3 and e056a1b5b. >> >> According to the currently implemented logic, mmc_do_erase() commonly is >> instructed to discard 1-2 erase groups at maximum, however it tends to be >> capable to successfully discard millions of erase groups at once ignoring >> that SDHC data line timeout limitation. >> > > You seem to be trying to say that the SDHCI spec. says that the host > controller does not timeout erase operations or uses a different timeout > than the one programmed in the "Timeout Control Register". Where is that is > the SDHCI spec? According to the spec a host controller timeouts erase operations like any other R1B command. So in your opinion, should there be SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_TIMEOUT_VAL instead of the new quirk? >>>> >>>> Potentially the change may break some of the SDHCs on discard of mmc, >>>> and for backward compatibility a new quirk is introduced, which is NOT >>>> set by default. >>> >>> It sounds to me that what you want to do is not standard so the quirk should >>> be the other way around. >> >> Please take a look at commits 58d1246db3 and e056a1b5b, I'd be glad, if you >> could elaborate to which "some host controllers" the quirk in my definition >> applies, I believe all other host controllers present at that time in >> drivers/mmc/host/* are capable to discard without introduced limitation. > > "some host controllers" == SDHCI i.e. to all of the ones you are applying > the change. > >> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy >>>> Reported-by: Ed Sutter >>>> Cc: Chris Ball >>>> Cc: Adrian Hunter >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 5 ++++- >>>> include/linux/mmc/sdhci.h | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>>> index bd8a098..b1fdddb 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>>> @@ -2930,7 +2930,10 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) >>>> if (host->quirks& SDHCI_QUIRK_DATA_TIMEOUT_USES_SDCLK) >>>> host->timeout_clk = mmc->f_max / 1000; >>>> >>>> - mmc->max_discard_to = (1<< 27) / host->timeout_clk; >>>> + if (host->quirks2& SDHCI_QUIRK2_DATA_TIMEOUT_ON_DISCARD) >>>> + mmc->max_discard_to = (1<< 27) / host->timeout_clk; >>>> + else >>>> + mmc->max_discard_to = 0; >>>> >>>> mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ | MMC_CAP_ERASE | MMC_CAP_CMD23; >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/sdhci.h b/include/linux/mmc/sdhci.h >>>> index 3e781b8..e7f6bd2 100644 >>>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/sdhci.h >>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/sdhci.h >>>> @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ struct sdhci_host { >>>> #define SDHCI_QUIRK2_CARD_ON_NEEDS_BUS_ON (1<<4) >>>> /* Controller has a non-standard host control register */ >>>> #define SDHCI_QUIRK2_BROKEN_HOST_CONTROL (1<<5) >>>> +#define SDHCI_QUIRK2_DATA_TIMEOUT_ON_DISCARD (1<<6) >>>> >>>> int irq; /* Device IRQ */ >>>> void __iomem *ioaddr; /* Mapped address */ >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html