linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
To: Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Use the SW timer when the HW timer cannot meet the timeout value required by the device
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:07:14 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <93292ef4-8548-d2ba-d803-d3b40b7e6c1d@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <beda2d5ecc3c15e9bf9aa18383c22c2a90d31dab.camel@gmail.com>

On 24/09/21 12:17 pm, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 08:29 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> If the data transmission timeout value required by the device
>>> exceeds
>>> the maximum timeout value of the host HW timer, we still use the HW
>>> timer with the maximum timeout value of the HW timer. This setting
>>> is
>>> suitable for most R/W situations. But sometimes, the device will
>>> complete
>>> the R/W task within its required timeout value (greater than the HW
>>> timer).
>>> In this case, the HW timer for data transmission will time out.
>>> Currently, in this condition, we  disable the HW timer and use the
>>> SW
>>> timer only when the SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT quirk is set by
>>> the
>>> host driver. The patch is to remove this if statement restriction
>>> and
>>> allow data transmission to use the SW timer when the hardware timer
>>> cannot
>>> meet the required timeout value.
>>
>>
>> The reason it is a quirk is because it does not work for all
>> hardware.
>>
>> For some controllers the timeout cannot really be disabled, only the
>>
>> interrupt is disabled, and then the controller never indicates
>> completion
>>
>> if the timeout is exceeded.
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> Yes, you are right. But this quirk prevents disabling the hardware timeoutIRQ. The purpose of this patch is to disable the hardware timeout IRQ and
> select the software timeout.
> 
> void __sdhci_set_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command
> *cmd)
> {
>         bool too_big = false;
>         u8 count = sdhci_calc_timeout(host, cmd, &too_big);
> 
>         if (too_big) {
>                 sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(host, cmd);
>                 sdhci_set_data_timeout_irq(host, false); // disable IRQ
>         } else if (!(host->ier & SDHCI_INT_DATA_TIMEOUT)) {
>                 sdhci_set_data_timeout_irq(host, true);
>         }
> 
>         sdhci_writeb(host, count, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL);
> }
> 
> 
> The driver has detected that the hardware timer cannot meet the timeout
> requirements of the device, but we still use the hardware timer, which will
> allow potential timeout issuea . Rather than allowing a potential
> problem to exist, why can’t software timing be used to avoid this
> problem?

Timeouts aren't that accurate.  The maximum is assumed still to work.
mmc->max_busy_timeout is used to tell the core what the maximum is.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-24 10:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210917172727.26834-1-huobean@gmail.com>
2021-09-17 17:27 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] mmc: sdhci: Return true only when timeout exceeds capacity of the HW timer Bean Huo
2021-09-24  6:32   ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-27 22:31   ` Ulf Hansson
2021-09-17 17:27 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Use the SW timer when the HW timer cannot meet the timeout value required by the device Bean Huo
2021-09-24  5:29   ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-24  9:17     ` Bean Huo
2021-09-24 10:07       ` Adrian Hunter [this message]
2021-09-24 11:45         ` Bean Huo
2021-09-24 12:17           ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-24 13:08             ` Bean Huo
2021-09-24 13:26               ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-24 21:33                 ` Bean Huo
2021-09-28  9:39                   ` Bean Huo
2021-09-28 10:18                   ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-29 10:49                     ` Bean Huo
2021-09-29 12:38                       ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-30  8:34                         ` Bean Huo
2021-09-30  8:59                           ` Adrian Hunter
2021-09-30  9:02                             ` 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=93292ef4-8548-d2ba-d803-d3b40b7e6c1d@intel.com \
    --to=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=beanhuo@micron.com \
    --cc=huobean@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).