From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] mmc: host: Add facility to support re-tuning Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:22:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1417801271-15575-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <1417801271-15575-3-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <54B51C55.9060500@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com ([209.85.216.178]:63096 "EHLO mail-qc0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052AbbAMOXA (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:23:00 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p6so2358113qcv.9 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 06:23:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54B51C55.9060500@intel.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Chris Ball , linux-mmc , Aaron Lu , Philip Rakity , Girish K S , Al Cooper , Arend van Spriel On 13 January 2015 at 14:23, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 13/01/15 13:25, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> Hi Adrian, >> >> Thanks for working on this and apologize for my late reply! >> >> On 5 December 2014 at 18:41, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>> Currently, there is core support for tuning during >>> initialization. There can also be a need to re-tune >>> periodically (e.g. sdhci) or to re-tune after the >>> host controller is powered off (e.g. after PM >>> runtime suspend / resume) or to re-tune in response >>> to CRC errors. >>> >>> The main requirements for re-tuning are: >>> - ability to enable /disable re-tuning >>> - ability to flag that re-tuning is needed >>> - ability to re-tune before any request >>> - ability to hold off re-tuning if the card is busy >>> - ability to hold off re-tuning if re-tuning is in >>> progress >>> - ability to run a re-tuning timer >> >> I suggest we skip the support for the re-tuning timer in this initial >> step and thus remove the related functionality from this patchset. It >> adds complexity, but more important it's not obvious that it actually >> will help. I am more concerned that it randomly will cause a request >> latency and thus decrease performance. >> >> The re-tuning period can't be selected "perfectly", so in this initial >> step let's instead just rely on re-tune from the request retry path. >> >> If we do see a need for a doing re-tuning periodically, how about >> using the runtime PM suspend path (of the mmc card device). In that >> way, we should be able to minimize the impact on performance. > > Thank you for looking at the patches. > > I am not sure I know what you mean. sdhci already has a re-tuning timer, so > this is just moving it into core, where it won't be used by other drivers > unless they enable it. I am kind of questioning the re-tuning timer in sdhci. What is it good for? Can sdhci rely on that the mmc core performs a re-tune from the request retry mechanism instead? > > I am not sure what you want to leave in sdhci.c and what you want in core, > if anything. We need all the infrastructure code in the core. Much like what your patchset does. Except that I would like you to remove the option of having a timer and the corresponding complexity it adds. > > At a minimum I need sdhci to be able to switch from hs400 to hs200, re-tune, > and switch back. As stated, I am only questioning the timer, nothing else. Kind regards Uffe