Re: [PATCH] mmc: core: Add new flag to force hardware reset

Ulf Hansson
2023-11-06T14:20:17Z

On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 13:26, Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/2023 9:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > - trimmed cc-list, + Sartak Garg
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 10:00, Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen666@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 08:04, Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Entering the recovery system itself indicates a transmission error.
> >>> In this situation, we intend to execute the mmc_blk_reset function
> >>> to clear any anomalies that may be caused by errors. We have previously
> >>> discussed with several MMC device manufacturers, and they expressed
> >>> their desire for us to reset the device when errors occur to ensure
> >>> stable operation. We aim to make this code compatible with all devices
> >>> and ensure its stable performance, so we would like to add this patch
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com>
> >>
> >> like: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/20220603051534.22672-1-quic_sartgarg@quicinc.com/
> >
> > Looks like this series didn't make it. I was awaiting a rebase from
> > Sartak to apply it, but apparently something got in his way for a new
> > submission.
> >
> >>
> >> You should enable it in the vendor host.
> >
> > Yes! We don't want unused code in the core. We need a user of it too.
> >
> > May I suggest that you pick up Sartak's patch for the core and thus
> > add another patch for the host driver you care about and then
> > re-submit it as a small series.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Uffe
> >
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 2 +-
> >>> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 1 +
> >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> >>> index b5b414a71e0b..29fbe0ddeadb 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> >>> @@ -1503,7 +1503,7 @@ void mmc_blk_cqe_recovery(struct mmc_queue *mq)
> >>> pr_debug("%s: CQE recovery start\n", mmc_hostname(host));
> >>>
> >>> err = mmc_cqe_recovery(host);
> >>> - if (err)
> >>> + if (err || host->cqe_recovery_reset_always)
> >>> mmc_blk_reset(mq->blkdata, host, MMC_BLK_CQE_RECOVERY);
> >>> mmc_blk_reset_success(mq->blkdata, MMC_BLK_CQE_RECOVERY);
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> >>> index 62a6847a3b6f..f578541a06b5 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> >>> @@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ struct mmc_host {
> >>> int cqe_qdepth;
> >>> bool cqe_enabled;
> >>> bool cqe_on;
> >>> + bool cqe_recovery_reset_always;
> >>>
> >>> /* Inline encryption support */
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_MMC_CRYPTO
> >>> --
> >>> 2.29.0
> >>>
> Dear Ulf,
> I have tested Sartak's patch and it is also able to resolve the issue we
> are currently facing. Therefore, I would like to inquire about the
> expected timeline for merging Sartak's patch.

Hi Michael,

There is another series [1] that Adrian is working on that is related
to the problem in $subject patch. Perhaps you can take a look and try
it out instead of Sartak's patch, which seems to have gotten stalled.

Kind regards
Uffe

[1]