From: Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Shimoda, Yoshihiro" <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: core: Let sanitize timeout readable/writable via sysfs
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 09:01:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <69debceaa1b653516a00993d579533383574c715.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFryYbahsR4PzFg3JAtSDZr-=cB0+XpgVQ2YJgZgiy9OXg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2021-04-02 at 00:48 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 15:29, Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
> > As the density increases, the 4-minute timeout value for
> > sanitize is no longer feasible. At the same time, devices
> > of different densities have different timeout values, and it is
> > difficult to obtain a unified standard timeout value. Therefore,
> > it is better to let the user explicitly change sanitize timeout
> > value according to the eMMC density on the board.
>
>
> This makes sense. The current timeout in the mmc core isn't good
>
> enough. However, I think there is a better option than inventing a
>
> sysfs node to allow userspace to specify the timeout.
>
>
>
> First, we have the card quirks that the mmc core uses to allow us to
>
> modify a common behaviour (in this case timeouts values for sanitize
>
> operations). This can be used to enforce a specific timeout for the
>
> eMMC card. I think this should take precedence over anything else.
>
>
>
> Second, the ioctl command allows you to specify a specific command
>
> timeout in the struct mmc_ioc_cmd (.cmd_timeout_ms). If this is
>
> specified from user space we could forward it to mmc_santize() and
> use
>
> that rather than the default MMC_SANITIZE_TIMEOUT_MS.
>
>
>
> Would this satisfy your needs?
>
Hi Ulf,
Add card quirk is diffcult since different card with different timeout.
I prefer to your second one. I will change this patch based on your
comments.
Thanks,
Bean
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Uffe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-02 7:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 13:28 [PATCH v2 0/2] Tow minor changes of eMMC sanitize Bean Huo
2021-04-01 13:28 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: core: Let sanitize timeout readable/writable via sysfs Bean Huo
2021-04-01 22:48 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-04-02 7:01 ` Bean Huo [this message]
2021-04-01 13:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mmc: core: Let sanitize not retry in case timeout Bean Huo
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=69debceaa1b653516a00993d579533383574c715.camel@gmail.com \
--to=huobean@gmail.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
--cc=yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.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