Re: [PATCH V6 03/15] mmc: core: Add support for re-tuning before each request

[Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>]

On 06/05/15 12:45, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 6 May 2015 at 10:02, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/15 16:28, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 20 April 2015 at 14:09, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> At the start of each request, re-tune if needed and
>>>> then hold off re-tuning again until the request is done.
>>>>
>>>> Note that though there is one function that starts
>>>> requests (mmc_start_request) there are two that wait for
>>>> the request to be done (mmc_wait_for_req_done and
>>>> mmc_wait_for_data_req_done).  Also note that
>>>> mmc_wait_for_data_req_done can return even when the
>>>> request is not done (which allows the block driver
>>>> to prepare a newly arrived request while still
>>>> waiting for the previous request).
>>>>
>>>> This patch ensures re-tuning is held for the duration
>>>> of a request.  Subsequent patches will also hold
>>>> re-tuning at other times when it might cause a
>>>> conflict.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Patch2 is calling mmc_retune_needed() and thus actually triggers a
>>> re-tune to potentially happen.
>>
>> That won't happen because host->retune_period is not set, so
>> mmc_retune_needed() won't be called.
> 
> mmc_retune_needed() is indeed called in patch2 (v7). From
> mmc_sdio_suspend() and when mmc_card_keep_power().

Yes, here is the chunk but it checks host->retune_period which  is zero
because it never gets set.

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
index 5bc6c7d..16e1f39 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
@@ -934,8 +934,12 @@ static int mmc_sdio_suspend(struct mmc_host *host)
 		mmc_release_host(host);
 	}

-	if (!mmc_card_keep_power(host))
+	if (!mmc_card_keep_power(host)) {
 		mmc_power_off(host);
+	} else if (host->retune_period) {
+		mmc_retune_timer_stop(host);
+		mmc_retune_needed(host);
+	}

 	return 0;
 }

> 
> I guess that wont be an issue!?

So I don't see an issue.

> 
> But I just felt that it seemed more appropriate to manage hold/release
> of re-tune before actually enabling the feature.

Yes the feature is gated until setting host->retune_period or calling
mmc_retune_needed().