All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	<linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <srv_heupstream@mediatek.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>,
	Wei-Ning Huang <wnhuang@chromium.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] mmc: mediatek: perfer to use rise edge latching
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:01:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1467252061-3791-5-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1467252061-3791-1-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>

in our host design, rise edge latching is more stable than fall edge
latching. so that if rise edge has enough margin, no need scan fall edge.

Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
index 91277b9..84e9afc 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
@@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int cmd_err;
 	int i;
@@ -1341,6 +1341,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
 	for (i = 0; i < PAD_DELAY_MAX; i++) {
@@ -1350,10 +1355,9 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
@@ -1374,7 +1378,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int i, ret;
 
@@ -1387,6 +1391,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
@@ -1397,14 +1406,10 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
-	/* Rising edge is more stable, prefer to use it */
-	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10)
-		final_maxlen = final_rise_delay.maxlen;
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
-- 
1.8.1.1.dirty

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>,
	Wei-Ning Huang <wnhuang@chromium.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] mmc: mediatek: perfer to use rise edge latching
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:01:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1467252061-3791-5-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1467252061-3791-1-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>

in our host design, rise edge latching is more stable than fall edge
latching. so that if rise edge has enough margin, no need scan fall edge.

Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
index 91277b9..84e9afc 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
@@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int cmd_err;
 	int i;
@@ -1341,6 +1341,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
 	for (i = 0; i < PAD_DELAY_MAX; i++) {
@@ -1350,10 +1355,9 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
@@ -1374,7 +1378,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int i, ret;
 
@@ -1387,6 +1391,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
@@ -1397,14 +1406,10 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
-	/* Rising edge is more stable, prefer to use it */
-	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10)
-		final_maxlen = final_rise_delay.maxlen;
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
-- 
1.8.1.1.dirty

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: chaotian.jing@mediatek.com (Chaotian Jing)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] mmc: mediatek: perfer to use rise edge latching
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:01:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1467252061-3791-5-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1467252061-3791-1-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>

in our host design, rise edge latching is more stable than fall edge
latching. so that if rise edge has enough margin, no need scan fall edge.

Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
index 91277b9..84e9afc 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
@@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int cmd_err;
 	int i;
@@ -1341,6 +1341,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
 	for (i = 0; i < PAD_DELAY_MAX; i++) {
@@ -1350,10 +1355,9 @@ static int msdc_tune_response(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!cmd_err)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_RSPL);
@@ -1374,7 +1378,7 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 {
 	struct msdc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
 	u32 rise_delay = 0, fall_delay = 0;
-	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay;
+	struct msdc_delay_phase final_rise_delay, final_fall_delay = { 0,};
 	u8 final_delay, final_maxlen;
 	int i, ret;
 
@@ -1387,6 +1391,11 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			rise_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
+	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
+	/* if rising edge has enough margin, then do not scan falling edge */
+	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10 ||
+	    (final_rise_delay.start == 0 && final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 4))
+		goto skip_fall;
 
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 	sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
@@ -1397,14 +1406,10 @@ static int msdc_tune_data(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
 		if (!ret)
 			fall_delay |= (1 << i);
 	}
-
-	final_rise_delay = get_best_delay(host, rise_delay);
 	final_fall_delay = get_best_delay(host, fall_delay);
 
+skip_fall:
 	final_maxlen = max(final_rise_delay.maxlen, final_fall_delay.maxlen);
-	/* Rising edge is more stable, prefer to use it */
-	if (final_rise_delay.maxlen >= 10)
-		final_maxlen = final_rise_delay.maxlen;
 	if (final_maxlen == final_rise_delay.maxlen) {
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_DSPL);
 		sdr_clr_bits(host->base + MSDC_IOCON, MSDC_IOCON_W_DSPL);
-- 
1.8.1.1.dirty

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-30  2:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-30  2:00 fix some host driver defect Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00 ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00 ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00 ` [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mediatek: do not tune data for HS400 mode Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] mmc: mediatek: fix CRC error when calling mmc_select_hs400() Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:00   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] mmc: mediatek: fix CMD21/CMD19 timeout issue Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:01   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:01   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:01 ` Chaotian Jing [this message]
2016-06-30  2:01   ` [PATCH 4/4] mmc: mediatek: perfer to use rise edge latching Chaotian Jing
2016-06-30  2:01   ` Chaotian Jing
2016-07-06 16:21 ` fix some host driver defect Ulf Hansson
2016-07-06 16:21   ` Ulf Hansson
2016-07-06 16:21   ` Ulf Hansson

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=1467252061-3791-5-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com \
    --to=chaotian.jing@mediatek.com \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=djkurtz@chromium.org \
    --cc=drinkcat@chromium.org \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=srv_heupstream@mediatek.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=wnhuang@chromium.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.