From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f47.google.com (mail-ej1-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 258D523CD for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 20:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f47.google.com with SMTP id va17so5253808ejb.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:49:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8okHVSCeVk+ZnwF2dT/hlxc8KUySI/TZc0fA2phC6yQ=; b=AezqRDki1GVKbPbPMlNTzxMV/HrmoAWpJtoOeYJoyHUhq1BYzrFKK3JWAJPQdmkEoF ezQJ3U2R0Ftl7E3YpRcMABmRuF+VsEW6vTUYwA2sE6aad/EOOzz15MaPJlX7eDcXO1u7 +omH05qKG75+adkNZtmYa7wQCNTqKzDgGMQsgIXBCN0xhYY3ASj/aETxEmNbtorMxZS4 JGfo85g3XdaKHh/45rWq1rPDbQxsFPfqAXjGBiJJvAfJxd1rxuUyU3UF++qJFgU8XWNG 2uipoeO/iMeJ8Bb70XGeZxW2SoofPzb9XOkTm9F9iKb/8vVEHtuov0CwUd8JUI6kpnmd LUAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8okHVSCeVk+ZnwF2dT/hlxc8KUySI/TZc0fA2phC6yQ=; b=T+VqkIvENMw/sW7TIuL91hlM8NLDvn4F0Cwi/CH9kvyMyHlmuKp4y4z+NuUZ7dDAqM tXW1p9QzxIZ4MnAvdJ8l/gRCfjITcpmeltcrsOgyHjRorFpTA+qW1ehZ6Fc2iFmUTW61 39bkxKtqruSREBWbPel9Hr/UM8twa6D6ZXoiOrntgbHa2bE8hlcTDm/O1JdfAaJquvM3 Hoxmw5EOgaXcOqlrE81RqZ5Axo7xws1wXXRfGcoJLRimKPa3lnzWGFlQWV3RvNodosgs /48JMEwj7Zg7Tfu5q8VCkoPMLiJtPS7IBAeXPzuWST4Q1sOyrLwFHsRQ5X+jXMMb8Hys BCHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9xu9FmHkmd28lxuHYVXVKeQo/XTBoLdB1Drh4ofUoDhTisT++3 zmh2xeMYITTAxdgyS+fj4o4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vw2zO9KKCzkQlCxWGtogxwOFqIqw3Bk6XR492cgd/yLpy6KL+KV7uUSqYC5I9TKrSSp/a4ag== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6d8f:b0:72b:6b87:81f1 with SMTP id sb15-20020a1709076d8f00b0072b6b8781f1mr346784ejc.674.1658436595233; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kista.localnet (86-58-13-89.dynamic.telemach.net. [86.58.13.89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 27-20020a170906329b00b007081282cbd8sm1209136ejw.76.2022.07.21.13.49.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:49:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jernej =?utf-8?B?xaBrcmFiZWM=?= To: Da Xue Cc: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, Andre Przywara , u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: Re: Re: Increasing stabilization time in sunxi_mmc_core_init Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 22:49:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4726146.GXAFRqVoOG@kista> In-Reply-To: References: <5840812.lOV4Wx5bFT@kista> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dne =C4=8Detrtek, 21. julij 2022 ob 22:33:09 CEST je Da Xue napisal(a): > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 4:05 PM Jernej =C5=A0krabec =20 wrote: > > Dne =C4=8Detrtek, 21. julij 2022 ob 21:56:35 CEST je Da Xue napisal(a): > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:14 AM Jernej =C5=A0krabec > > >=20 > > > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > >=20 > > > > Dne =C4=8Detrtek, 21. julij 2022 ob 13:28:59 CEST je Andre Przywara= =20 napisal(a): > > > > > On 21/07/2022 12:03, Da Xue wrote: > > > > >=20 > > > > > Hi Da, > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Users were reporting non-boot on our H5 boards (ALL-H3-CC-H5). > > > > > > u-boot > > > > > > gets stuck in SPL with this message for SD/eMMC respectively. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Trying to boot from MMC1 or Trying to boot from MMC2 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > I tested about 20 MicroSD cards from different brands and some > > > > > > were > > > > > > happy and some were not. Increasing the udelay to 8-10ms in > > > > > > drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c sunxi_mmc_core_init after reset seems to > > > > > > fix > > > > > > the issue for the MicroSD cards. > > > > >=20 > > > > > That's interesting, thanks for the report. I don't remember heari= ng > > > > > of > > > > > issues with MMC before, at least not in the SPL. > > > >=20 > > > > I certainly experienced this issue on board in question. I vaguely > > > > remember > > > > asking about this issue on IRC. I also tried all sorts of tweaks, b= ut > > > > it > > > > never occured to me that mmc reset timeout would be too short. > > > >=20 > > > > Da, how did you find this? > > >=20 > > > Someone on the Armbian forum posted that they had the same problem > > > with eMMC so I got suspicious. I scoped the MicroSD clock line and > > > realized the frequency goes high and then drops to very low as if it > > > never found the card. > > > I had a hunch it was a stabilization delay and got lucky. > > >=20 > > > > I only test one other H5 board occasionally, namely OrangePi PC2, b= ut > > > > I > > > > never observed such issue there. I always needed about 5 attempts to > > > > boot > > > > ALL-H3-CC- H5 board, but once it's cold booted, warm boots always > > > > succeed. > > >=20 > > > I had run into this too so it didn't make any sense. I tried 5ms and > > > it helped on some cards but not others. > > > I know the Orange Pis do not have the series resistor for ESD > > > protection of the SD GPIOs but that shouldn't affect this. > > > So...who knows? > > >=20 > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jernej > > > >=20 > > > > > It's a bit odd that waiting after the *controller* reset should > > > > > affect > > > > > SD cards, and 1ms seems plenty for just the reset. > > > > > I just checked and at least the SOFT_RESET and FIFO_RESET bits are > > > > > self > > > > > clearing. Can you try to use wait_for_bit_le32() to wait for those > > > > > parts > > > > > to finish? See sun8i_emac_eth_start() for an example. > > >=20 > > > I tested some more and here's the data: > > > sandisk ultra 64gb 9/20 with 1ms, 20/20 with 10ms > > > sandisk ultra 16gb 2/20 with 1ms, 20/20 with 10ms > > > sandisk extreme 16gb 6/20 with 10ms, 20/20 with 20ms > > > Given this, I don't think it's an issue with the bit set delays. Might > > > need more than 10ms even. I didn't change the udelay in probe. > >=20 > > Idea here is that we wouldn't need to determine the appropriate delay, = but > > instead, wait_for_bit_le32() would monitor reset bit and continue only > > after reset bit would clear itself. Hopefully that happens after > > everything is stable. >=20 > I changed it to 50ms delay >=20 > writel(SUNXI_MMC_GCTRL_RESET, &priv->reg->gctrl); > if (wait_for_bit_le32( &priv->reg->gctrl, > SUNXI_MMC_GCTRL_RESET, false, 50, false)) { > printf("%s: Timeout\n", __func__); > return ret; > } >=20 > and that seems to work. Shall I send the patch? Certainly, that's major improvement. Just 1 small nitpick - you don't need = to=20 introduce ret variable, just return error -ETIMEDOUT directly. Maybe timeout can be raised even to 100 ms, now that it continues as soon a= s=20 possible. Better to be on the completely safe side. But I'll leave that=20 decision to you and Andre. Best regards, Jernej >=20 > > Best regards, > > Jernej > >=20 > > > > > And since you mentioned it's card related: can you check whether = the > > > > > delay is actually needed somewhere else, later? At some point whe= re > > > > > we > > > > > wait to the card to response, for instance? > > > > >=20 > > > > > I am not against taking this patch, if it fixes problems for you, > > > > > but > > > > > just want to avoid that it papers over other issues. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Andre > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Author: Da Xue > > > > > > Date: Wed Jul 20 19:11:55 2022 -0400 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > sunxi: raise stabilization time for mmc from 1ms to 8ms > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c > > > > > > index 1bb7b6d0e9..499e057725 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c > > > > > > @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ static int sunxi_mmc_core_init(struct mmc > > > > > > *mmc) > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > /* Reset controller */ > > > > > > writel(SUNXI_MMC_GCTRL_RESET, &priv->reg->gctrl); > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > - udelay(1000); > > > > > > + udelay(8000); > > >=20 > > > This might need to be even higher. Like 20ms. > > >=20 > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > } > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > I don't know the implications of this change so I am seeking > > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > Are other boards having this issue as well or is it specific to > > > > > > our > > > > > > hardware? > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Da