From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6D8C433F5 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:46:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985D561222 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:46:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240206AbhIIOr2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:47:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47468 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S245352AbhIIOrG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:47:06 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C72C04E203 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 07:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id s10so4126457lfr.11 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2021 07:36:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nfWuSYzOTRC59I6qOR1SYjFia3S5j3gRmLTCIne6P4w=; b=gv1filuwoj0quZ94cE+P7k2HrzlA86DLQyp/KFSQcMddUY50QDF5PXQo4FKTrN+E1k 2oeIzYOsMUCIEGPP5DLfBk7GLfGmxF5arlIos/kVpbwIbokkO5H9JGrMGyfjbRrag+7b GL4htI7Zup5tJ5I/oZwE8xpxRfWikWjh7G0Imo1V6rCvtO/F291ATBkUqqvNEeNWJYSt jZiEZBfAXRTFGKAm7KH7JnTB7iTCHVN7xpoZCsDUmcixxPx3KAUlK+yE3bFXqsatW6kU e5m8bkUZac7uz/zFTSrOmpEgYZXcse/3Z6deYhACYniCrX6oTmoJpMrD9q6sWpUWsVnl nYcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nfWuSYzOTRC59I6qOR1SYjFia3S5j3gRmLTCIne6P4w=; b=vk1DSAopLEKJU7vgFhSHCdbHXteRpopRlIdkT2ifPYDXXffyCZAMKsilENLgW6bFDn a17uQQS8qGEtgzvJfp3uDzN8SWGVDS8tTnSNNzSsTZx2ta/pEeAz9PRZV3NqC49SgM75 nTb/PPX6uI1JB/qGJ3WonBp+RhD7unuZ7kDUitlzVS3c4OOYhvKWfa3JrjkRYKSbv8GQ Su6C9/ErSJhMFk23pRvYmUpFDHzzjSVeXIPhTU1MYlHhvQAErXnBXWRhrpAAShUPUSiv Q7IRv5H0uunDqLgLfZMeldDGLgOzjtLTT52gqfQ0dTY62B2BgwWtWSozHOXCi6pYSIsS 1B7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313cTwwG7DqS2sE5Vz5x+79okcFamCC2+/RlACVjr54i6fKTQhb C2LpE9V3aUhGg9vJaqtFfS6Cva48eEc4wymEhjKhUkb2Xi4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz72X997WnFW2qZfhlhkH7As4zPBZKYQUMqXXBf92uIDZfUoMxjzPK3+3Lgd8EFuR5giPXv2D7+L/O6lKYQcrQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1043:: with SMTP id c3mr149496lfb.358.1631198165457; Thu, 09 Sep 2021 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210831133349.18203-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ulf Hansson Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:35:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] HACK: mmc: core: also abort tuning with CMD12 for SD To: Wolfram Sang , Ulf Hansson , linux-mmc , Linux-Renesas , Adrian Hunter , Yoshihiro Shimoda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:03, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > > > 1) despite not being mentioned in the spec, do we want to allow CMD12 to > > > abort tuning for SD as well? > > > > It sounds like we should give it a try with the CMD12 command for SD > > cards as well. > > I think so. > > > > 2) If so, how to make sure not apply it to SDIO but SD only? > > > > For now, I am fine with adding a new bus_ops callback > > (->abort_tuning()) and then let mmc_send_abort_tuning() to call it. > > Cool, I like that approach. > > > I have some additional plans to improve life cycle issues for the > > bus_ops, but let's ignore that for now. I can deal with that later. > > Ok, good. > > > That said, mmc_send_abort_tuning() should no longer need to take the > > opcode as an in-parameter, thus some additional cleanup should be > > needed in a few host drivers because of that. > > > > Would that work? > > I think that would work nicely. I will have a go with the above approach > and come back then. Or do you want to implement it? Please go ahead, I can review it. > > Thanks and happy hacking, > > Wolfram > Kind regards Uffe