Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] brcmfmac: sdio: Disable auto-tuning around commands expected to fail

[Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On June 7, 2019 2:40:04 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 7/06/19 8:12 AM, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> On June 6, 2019 11:37:22 PM Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the case of dw_mmc, which I'm most familiar with, we don't have any
>>> sort of automated or timed-based retuning.  ...so we'll only re-tune
>>> when we see the CRC error.  If I'm understanding things correctly then
>>> that for dw_mmc my solution and yours behave the same.  That means the
>>> difference is how we deal with other retuning requests, either ones
>>> that come about because of an interrupt that the host controller
>>> provided or because of a timer.  Did I get that right?
>> 
>> Right.
>> 
>>> ...and I guess the reason we have to deal specially with these cases
>>> is because any time that SDIO card is "sleeping" we don't want to
>>> retune because it won't work.  Right?  NOTE: the solution that would
>>> come to my mind first to solve this would be to hold the retuning for
>>> the whole time that the card was sleeping and then release it once the
>>> card was awake again.  ...but I guess we don't truly need to do that
>>> because tuning only happens as a side effect of sending a command to
>>> the card and the only command we send to the card is the "wake up"
>>> command.  That's why your solution to hold tuning while sending the
>>> "wake up" command works, right?
>> 
>> Yup.
>> 
>>> ---
>>>
>>> OK, so assuming all the above is correct, I feel like we're actually
>>> solving two problems and in fact I believe we actually need both our
>>> approaches to solve everything correctly.  With just your patch in
>>> place there's a problem because we will clobber any external retuning
>>> requests that happened while we were waking up the card.  AKA, imagine
>>> this:
>>>
>>> A) brcmf_sdio_kso_control(on=True) gets called; need_retune starts as 0
>>>
>>> B) We call sdio_retune_hold_now()
>>>
>>> C) A retuning timer goes off or the SD Host controller tells us to retune
>>>
>>> D) We get to the end of brcmf_sdio_kso_control() and clear the "retune
>>> needed" since need_retune was 0 at the start.
>>>
>>> ...so we dropped the retuning request from C), right?
>>>
>>>
>>> What we truly need is:
>>>
>>> 1. CRC errors shouldn't trigger a retuning request when we're in
>>> brcmf_sdio_kso_control()
>>>
>>> 2. A separate patch that holds any retuning requests while the SDIO
>>> card is off.  This patch _shouldn't_ do any clearing of retuning
>>> requests, just defer them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that make sense to you?  If so, I can try to code it up...
>> 
>> FWIW it does make sense to me. However, I am still not sure if our sdio
>> hardware supports retuning. Have to track down an asic designer who can tell
>> or dive into vhdl myself.
>
> The card supports re-tuning if is handles CMD19, which it does.  It is not
> the card that does any tuning, only the host.  The card just helps by
> providing a known data pattern in response to CMD19.  It can be that a card
> provides good enough signals that the host should not need to re-tune.  I
> don't know if that can be affected by the board design though.

Right. I know it supports initial tuning, but I'm not sure about subsequent 
retuning initiated by the host controller.

Regards,
Arend