From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com (lelv0142.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FF96190477; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724165256; cv=none; b=vBoIrzJya9RVNyj5gqzur+j0flfIqt8IrDGpGWaCE1twF2kk5eFl+79X/BA/RYoHyzbyCAIo7k9VmafwisUNhBDQUM4tKFNmS/Z0DTiCTzOlykFJqiV4hyGnSh53+UYM7ja62DN6rt+Yuxgj09h2qPpNdc3m+xlvE53Td8rHToQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724165256; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RPfJlisKrzDoTGaoZ7uPi4f1TxcmpGkWqR5hGE0Dh/s=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=pjn5e3r+YIJvGO7s2qE30khV0gtsXvjuuxyKj4i7nhEznMla/goZCNknKXqsFbKN5LIE81eYqNLOB2jJLgJ9tMJjJSx6kz1+fRIP85+Lwj/sxsWALSbmUPQNJBjE/mV+fx6cvDliJCknTwNCjAQWt8mZ/CwXaQBpTUBU7n5L/+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=eQD6BfpZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="eQD6BfpZ" Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47KElW4W075704; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1724165252; bh=RPfJlisKrzDoTGaoZ7uPi4f1TxcmpGkWqR5hGE0Dh/s=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To; b=eQD6BfpZt+KX9//Gp2otjevlWnY2dONNZf6VJTluJwvmBhO/8JvxuKa9sPFjHFzH9 cdSKvflkxvGtPjt06cnWephPChQMxKMOxz9Ndqmouowy/FnWgFALXnj5A/O5Gy+IkJ oyB1i5PhpcoDt3lX209ycYt13LCcCSt+jcOKnpr8= Received: from DLEE103.ent.ti.com (dlee103.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.33]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 47KElWTF081274 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:32 -0500 Received: from DLEE105.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.35) by DLEE103.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:31 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DLEE105.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:31 -0500 Received: from [128.247.81.105] (judy-hp.dhcp.ti.com [128.247.81.105]) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47KElVbD123118; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:31 -0500 Message-ID: <954ef458-7234-4d65-8315-526aab85fc1a@ti.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:47:31 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmc: sdhci_am654: Add retry tuning From: Judith Mendez To: Ulf Hansson CC: Adrian Hunter , , References: <20240815201542.421653-1-jm@ti.com> <20240815201542.421653-2-jm@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20240815201542.421653-2-jm@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Hi all, On 8/15/24 3:15 PM, Judith Mendez wrote: > Add retry tuning up to 10 times if we fail to find > a failing region or no passing itapdly. This is > necessary since some eMMC's have been observed to never > find a failing itapdly on the first couple of tuning > iterations, but eventually do. It been observed that the > tuning algorithm does not need to loop more than 10 times > before finding a failing itapdly. Will fix-up this commit message as well, there has only been one case like this so far. ~ Judith