[U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: clean up time out detection

[Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>]

Hi Masahiro,

On 07/08/2016 07:58 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current timeout detection logic is not very nice; it calls
> get_timer(start) in the while() loop, and then calls it again after
> the loop to check if a timeout error happened.
> 
> Because of the time difference between the two calls of get_time(),
> the reason detected after the loop may not be really true.

It makes sense. Looks good to me.
Tested with Exynos boards

Acked-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> index 604f18d..0a1882d 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> @@ -243,17 +243,17 @@ static int sdhci_send_command(struct mmc *mmc, struct mmc_cmd *cmd,
>  		stat = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_INT_STATUS);
>  		if (stat & SDHCI_INT_ERROR)
>  			break;
> -	} while (((stat & mask) != mask) &&
> -		 (get_timer(start) < SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT));
>  
> -	if (get_timer(start) >= SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT) {
> -		if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_R1B)
> -			return 0;
> -		else {
> -			printf("%s: Timeout for status update!\n", __func__);
> -			return TIMEOUT;
> +		if (get_timer(start) >= SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT) {
> +			if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_R1B) {
> +				return 0;
> +			} else {
> +				printf("%s: Timeout for status update!\n",
> +				       __func__);
> +				return TIMEOUT;
> +			}
>  		}
> -	}
> +	} while ((stat & mask) != mask);
>  
>  	if ((stat & (SDHCI_INT_ERROR | mask)) == mask) {
>  		sdhci_cmd_done(host, cmd);
>