From: Hein Tibosch <hein_tibosch@yahoo.es>
To: majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com>
Cc: balajitk <balajitk@ti.com>, cjb <cjb@laptop.org>,
mayuzheng <mayuzheng@kedacom.com>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Fix sleep too long in ISR context.
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:22:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51FA1AB7.8030105@yahoo.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201308011017566117580@gmail.com>
Hi Jianpeng Ma,
On 8/1/2013 10:18 AM, majianpeng wrote:
> We found a problem when we removed a working sd card that the irqaction
> of omap_hsmmc can sleep to 3.6s. This cause our watchdog to work.
> In func omap_hsmmc_reset_controller_fsm, it should watch a 0->1
> transition.It used loops_per_jiffy as the timer.
> The code is:
>> while ((!(OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit))
>> && (i++ < limit))
>> cpu_relax();
> But the loops_per_jiffy is:
>> while(i++ < limit)
>> cpu_relax();
> It add some codes so the time became long.
> Becasue those codes in ISR context, it can't use timer_before/after.
> I divived the time into 1ms and used udelay(1) to instead.
> It will cause do additional udelay(1).But from my test,it looks good.
>
> Reported-by: Yuzheng Ma <mayuzheng@kedacom.com>
> Tested-by: Yuzheng Ma <mayuzheng@kedacom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <majianpeng@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> index 1865321..96daca1 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> @@ -977,6 +977,8 @@ static inline void omap_hsmmc_reset_controller_fsm(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host,
> unsigned long limit = (loops_per_jiffy *
> msecs_to_jiffies(MMC_TIMEOUT_MS));
>
> + /*Divided time into us for unit 1,we can use udelay(1)*/
> + i = limit / (MMC_TIMEOUT_MS * 1000);
'limit' is a number of loops, which you now divide by 20,000?
To get uS, you could just change:
- unsigned long limit = (loops_per_jiffy *
- msecs_to_jiffies(MMC_TIMEOUT_MS));
+ unsigned long limit = 1000 * MMC_TIMEOUT_MS;
and make this amount of loops using udelay().
> OMAP_HSMMC_WRITE(host->base, SYSCTL,
> OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) | bit);
>
> @@ -985,15 +987,19 @@ static inline void omap_hsmmc_reset_controller_fsm(struct omap_hsmmc_host *host,
> * Monitor a 0->1 transition first
> */
> if (mmc_slot(host).features & HSMMC_HAS_UPDATED_RESET) {
> - while ((!(OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit))
> - && (i++ < limit))
> - cpu_relax();
I still don't see why any of these loops could last 3.6 seconds?
Yes the __raw_readl() will add some time, but so much?
I'd like to see which value you get for 'limit' on your machine
Would PM play a role? Or cpu-freq, and 'loops_per_jiffy' isn't updated
on time?
> + while (i--) {
> + if ((OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit))
> + break;
> + udelay(1);
In earlier threads, the use of udelay was disliked because it's a waste
of cpu cycles. The desired bit in SYSCTL will change, while udelay()
is still making many useless loops.
> + }
> }
> - i = 0;
>
> - while ((OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit) &&
> - (i++ < limit))
> - cpu_relax();
> + i = limit / (MMC_TIMEOUT_MS * 1000);
> + while (i--) {
> + if (!(OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit))
> + break;
> + udealy(1);
> + }
>
> if (OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base, SYSCTL) & bit)
> dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
Hein
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-01 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-01 2:18 [PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Fix sleep too long in ISR context majianpeng
2013-08-01 8:22 ` Hein Tibosch [this message]
2013-08-01 8:40 ` majianpeng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51FA1AB7.8030105@yahoo.es \
--to=hein_tibosch@yahoo.es \
--cc=balajitk@ti.com \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=majianpeng@gmail.com \
--cc=mayuzheng@kedacom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).