mmc_test : some results

mmc_test : some results

[Nicolas Ferre]

Hi Pierre,

Here are the results of a mmc_test run played on at91_mci after applying 
this patch series :
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/201

I skipped some of the tests just to concentrate on those ones.

Can you tell me if the test is correct : are the errors reported for the 
xfer_size tests the normal behavior (I assume yes because a failure is 
simulated) ?

~ # echo 1  > /sys/class/mmc_host/mmc0/mmc0\:e624/test
mmc0: Starting tests of card mmc0:e624...
mmc0: Test case 1. Basic write (no data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 2. Basic read (no data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 3. Basic write (with data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 4. Basic read (with data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 5. Multi-block write...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 6. Multi-block read...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 7. Correct xfer_size at write (start failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-84)
mmc0: Test case 8. Correct xfer_size at read (start failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-110)
mmc0: Test case 9. Correct xfer_size at write (midway failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-84)
mmc0: Test case 10. Correct xfer_size at read (midway failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-110)
mmc0: Tests completed.
~ #

Thanks, regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

RE: mmc_test : some results

[Gururaja Hebbar K R]

Hi Nicolas,

Could you please be kind enough to share the test program so that we can
test mmc driver on other platforms.

 i have a customized arm9 versatile board with mmci controller and
would like to test the same

TIA,

Regards
Gururaja


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.arm.linux.org.uk
[mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.arm.linux.org.uk] On Behalf Of
Nicolas Ferre
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Pierre Ossman; ARM Linux Mailing List; Linux Kernel list
Subject: mmc_test : some results

Hi Pierre,

Here are the results of a mmc_test run played on at91_mci after applying
this patch series :
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/201

I skipped some of the tests just to concentrate on those ones.

Can you tell me if the test is correct : are the errors reported for the
xfer_size tests the normal behavior (I assume yes because a failure is
simulated) ?

~ # echo 1  > /sys/class/mmc_host/mmc0/mmc0\:e624/test
mmc0: Starting tests of card mmc0:e624...
mmc0: Test case 1. Basic write (no data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 2. Basic read (no data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 3. Basic write (with data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 4. Basic read (with data verification)...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 5. Multi-block write...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 6. Multi-block read...
mmc0: Result: OK
mmc0: Test case 7. Correct xfer_size at write (start failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-84)
mmc0: Test case 8. Correct xfer_size at read (start failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-110)
mmc0: Test case 9. Correct xfer_size at write (midway failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-84)
mmc0: Test case 10. Correct xfer_size at read (midway failure)...
mmc0: Result: ERROR (-110)
mmc0: Tests completed.
~ #

Thanks, regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre


-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin:
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
FAQ:        http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php
Etiquette:  http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php

Re: mmc_test : some results

[Nicolas Ferre]

Gururaja Hebbar K R :
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> Could you please be kind enough to share the test program so that we can
> test mmc driver on other platforms.

mmc_test is included in the mainline kernel :
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/17/45

I just selected the tests I wanted to use in the source code (in 
mmc_test_cases tab).

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

Re: mmc_test : some results

[Pierre Ossman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:31:15 +0200
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
> 
> Here are the results of a mmc_test run played on at91_mci after applying 
> this patch series :
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/201
> 
> I skipped some of the tests just to concentrate on those ones.
> 
> Can you tell me if the test is correct : are the errors reported for the 
> xfer_size tests the normal behavior (I assume yes because a failure is 
> simulated) ?

No. You're supposed to get an OK there as well. Basically it tests that
the driver doesn't report some unexpected error (-ETIMEDOUT is the
desired one) or overreports the number of written bytes.
> 
> ~ # echo 1  > /sys/class/mmc_host/mmc0/mmc0\:e624/test

FYI, I've added some changes that will make that invocation only run
test 1. Do echo "" for all tests in the future.

Rgds
Pierre

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[PATCH] at91_mci: manage cmd error and data error independently

[Nicolas Ferre]

In at91_mci_completed_command() function, this patch distinguishes 
command error and data error. It reports it in the corresponding 
error field.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
---
Related to this thread :

Pierre Ossman :

> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:31:15 +0200
> Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Pierre,
>>
>> Here are the results of a mmc_test run played on at91_mci after applying 
>> this patch series :
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/201
>>
>> I skipped some of the tests just to concentrate on those ones.
>>
>> Can you tell me if the test is correct : are the errors reported for the 
>> xfer_size tests the normal behavior (I assume yes because a failure is 
>> simulated) ?
>>     
>
> No. You're supposed to get an OK there as well. Basically it tests that
> the driver doesn't report some unexpected error (-ETIMEDOUT is the
> desired one) or overreports the number of written bytes.
>   
Ok, so here is the first correction of the driver reporting the proper 
values in read.

It goes on top of this series :
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/30/201

 drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
index 9948fe1..86a3c5b 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
@@ -663,6 +664,7 @@ static void at91_mci_process_next(struct at91mci_host *host)
 static void at91_mci_completed_command(struct at91mci_host *host, unsigned int status)
 {
 	struct mmc_command *cmd = host->cmd;
+	struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
 
 	at91_mci_write(host, AT91_MCI_IDR, 0xffffffff & ~(AT91_MCI_SDIOIRQA | AT91_MCI_SDIOIRQB));
 
@@ -685,15 +687,25 @@ static void at91_mci_completed_command(struct at91mci_host *host, unsigned int s
 			cmd->error = 0;
 		}
 		else {
-			if (status & (AT91_MCI_RTOE | AT91_MCI_DTOE))
-				cmd->error = -ETIMEDOUT;
-			else if (status & (AT91_MCI_RCRCE | AT91_MCI_DCRCE))
-				cmd->error = -EILSEQ;
-			else
-				cmd->error = -EIO;
+			if (status & (AT91_MCI_DTOE | AT91_MCI_DCRCE)) {
+				if (data) {
+					if (status & AT91_MCI_DTOE)
+						data->error = -ETIMEDOUT;
+					else if (status & AT91_MCI_DCRCE)
+						data->error = -EILSEQ;
+				}
+			} else {
+				if (status & AT91_MCI_RTOE)
+					cmd->error = -ETIMEDOUT;
+				else if (status & AT91_MCI_RCRCE)
+					cmd->error = -EILSEQ;
+				else
+					cmd->error = -EIO;
+			}
 
-			pr_debug("Error detected and set to %d (cmd = %d, retries = %d)\n",
-				 cmd->error, cmd->opcode, cmd->retries);
+			pr_debug("Error detected and set to %d/%d (cmd = %d, retries = %d)\n",
+				cmd->error, data ? data->error : 0,
+				 cmd->opcode, cmd->retries);
 		}
 	}
 	else
-- 
1.5.3.7