From: Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.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 13:45:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40e525300cd656dd17ffc89e1fcbc9a47ea90caf.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93292ef4-8548-d2ba-d803-d3b40b7e6c1d@intel.com>
On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 13:07 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> 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.
>
mmc->max_busy_timeout is still a representation of Host HW timer
maximum timeout count, isn't it?
Bean
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-24 11:46 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
2021-09-24 11:45 ` Bean Huo [this message]
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=40e525300cd656dd17ffc89e1fcbc9a47ea90caf.camel@gmail.com \
--to=huobean@gmail.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=beanhuo@micron.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).