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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 B1BF7C43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836FD2073D for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="KyH5SEa3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727334AbfLJMUz (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:20:55 -0500 Received: from mail-ua1-f68.google.com ([209.85.222.68]:45001 "EHLO mail-ua1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727325AbfLJMUy (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:20:54 -0500 Received: by mail-ua1-f68.google.com with SMTP id d6so7081560uam.11 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:20:54 -0800 (PST) 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 :cc; bh=+GXCkz0A083CnW2Auy3zOSjwo1M0I1o2oKHeSL9F3ck=; b=KyH5SEa3abXaiGToIC3ZdQDJPjQz7ehlNHa1ewyHS05ElloLcTSWUH0+HHxGSpmv35 0zlWrNuW20o6rR7byo5kwkQGHdbqOsjtqAk71j96a9o1pdQ8ZalAOazL9CCburkIWQg3 QHXevI2feYkETt3mDJ6WQBTmj6EZ2zjN/PiP6GJdTkujIbnhuW6Vce6LMqVPlCwGIfJt E8byyo1vnZ1FiSNFISAIBbopXvRnZtV3tsqzNmLNKEya3TQpuE8vYslVfw1+wssR+kLR KxGH+irE1aFPt39ROF9djLlen7lWYJ9nXFdNXFLZ3P2/XbWfdiiOcvpQVQe4QFLEAp4n WPaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+GXCkz0A083CnW2Auy3zOSjwo1M0I1o2oKHeSL9F3ck=; b=X1QNo+alWgEcE643v+atWhrhhE9EozYjqT9T9y2ywzCn1htiaVgWAeqLnSyKLlPL7n gt7BXVA8hvmRzF8CnK8MjU0v+HKh06nOsL/HEcKDYtaNCeMLdBUpwmqmCLuYR60R9lj0 HnoPggLSGtuvGEm7bav6KX0rQ3z45ney7UxnT1Zu0HJWG7QsC6L+51I7ELbOxRDb1xst 9SERubVe6lVeCK6N9oIBMgo60YQUBhpP3TnD68VLPSrhCpL5fKDDt6j8eujwMv9jkd2W YWyDLT6qjwwSYmTHM5N0c5ZlDf97pcMl4qvMlPd4A0dRkdAlniGUzGOJALa93PW8hdZL 9rRw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX248Fa2351wr47wJcpA954XGIVfhpq3RMXNgh2ptufO5nodGed beHINthWPrZjeYUly1KHvETx9FPF8SSm6O8nKXnKEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXodp8MezisX2Ogin4ZbF5PMroS3cE2mukEBRUXULiSnp8AsW1NNU4k9XYdJLiuEsKDM0ea9YUPKV0ekMZ3NQ= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4ea6:: with SMTP id l38mr29080701uah.129.1575980453850; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:20:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191113172514.19052-1-ludovic.Barre@st.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ulf Hansson Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH 1/1] mmc: mmci: add threaded irq to abort DPSM of non-functional state To: Ludovic BARRE Cc: DTML , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Srinivas Kandagatla , Maxime Coquelin , linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, Linux ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi Ludovic, On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:06, Ludovic BARRE wrote: > > hi Ulf > > just a gentleman ping about this thread. > > small summarize: > This patch return an IRQ_WAKE_THREAD only when the variant is > busy_timeout capable and a datatimeout occurs on R1B request. > > So the threaded irq is called only to treat this specific error. > Normally, there is no impact on HW flow control or for legacy variants. Yes, this should work. > > In your previous message, you seem to suggest using threaded irq to > manage HW flow control (pio mode). But Like you mention below, the mmci > legacy could timing sensitive. > > For the moment, I prefer to use the threaded irq just to manage this > error. If needed, the irq threade could be extended later. > > What do you think about that? Yes, that's fine! I have another minor comment on the code, though, but posting that separately. [...] Kind regards Uffe