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=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 EECFEC282C4 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B415E21934 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387438AbfBMDNe (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:13:34 -0500 Received: from mailgw02.mediatek.com ([210.61.82.184]:11815 "EHLO mailgw02.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732431AbfBMDNd (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:13:33 -0500 X-UUID: fa9ed60fafa84c62a9e541dfa9d78eea-20190213 X-UUID: fa9ed60fafa84c62a9e541dfa9d78eea-20190213 Received: from mtkcas09.mediatek.inc [(172.21.101.178)] by mailgw02.mediatek.com (envelope-from ) (mhqrelay.mediatek.com ESMTP with TLS) with ESMTP id 1959875694; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:13:19 +0800 Received: from MTKCAS36.mediatek.inc (172.27.4.186) by mtkmbs03n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:13:17 +0800 Received: from [10.17.3.153] (10.17.3.153) by MTKCAS36.mediatek.inc (172.27.4.170) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:13:14 +0800 Message-ID: <1550027594.16070.15.camel@mhfsdcap03> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmc: Fix HS setting in mmc_hs400_to_hs200() From: Chaotian Jing To: Adrian Hunter CC: Ulf Hansson , Matthias Brugger , Shawn Lin , "Simon Horman" , Kyle Roeschley , Hongjie Fang , "Harish Jenny K N" , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , , srv_heupstream Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:13:14 +0800 In-Reply-To: <1550019275.16070.6.camel@mhfsdcap03> References: <1548921212-5219-1-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com> <1548985091.10251.26.camel@mhfsdcap03> <0e95e1a1-843e-38ea-c4bb-e6c48432ea7c@intel.com> <4c8a616f-f424-fd58-43c5-d6042665bc58@intel.com> <1549937058.16070.5.camel@mhfsdcap03> <566c0c11-be9c-73a3-d7ff-34aed3ad7db0@intel.com> <1550019275.16070.6.camel@mhfsdcap03> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MTK: N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 08:54 +0800, Chaotian Jing wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 10:04 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > On 12/02/19 4:04 AM, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 15:42 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >> On 5/02/19 3:06 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 14:42, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4/02/19 12:54 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 1/02/19 10:10 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 02:38, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 16:58 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 08:53, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> mmc_hs400_to_hs200() begins with the card and host in HS400 mode. > > >>>>>>>>>> Therefore, any commands sent to the card should use HS400 timing. > > >>>>>>>>>> It is incorrect to reduce frequency to 50Mhz before sending the switch > > >>>>>>>>>> command, in this case, only reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz but without > > >>>>>>>>>> host timming change, host is still in hs400 mode but clock changed from > > >>>>>>>>>> 200Mhz to 50Mhz, which makes the tuning result unsuitable and cause > > >>>>>>>>>> the switch command gets response CRC error. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> According the eMMC spec there is no violation by decreasing the clock > > >>>>>>>>> frequency like this. We can use whatever value <=200MHz. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> However, perhaps in practice this becomes an issue, due to the tuning > > >>>>>>>>> for HS400 has been done on the "current" frequency. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> As as start, I think you need to clarify this in the changelog. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Yes, reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz is no Spec violation, but it may > > >>>>>>>> cause __mmc_switch() gets response CRC error, decreasing the clock but > > >>>>>>>> without HOST mode change, on the host side, host driver do not know > > >>>>>>>> what's operation the core layer want to do and can only set current bus > > >>>>>>>> clock to 50Mhz, without tuning parameter change, it has a chance lead to > > >>>>>>>> response CRC error. even lower clock frequency, but with the wrong > > >>>>>>>> tuning parameter setting(the setting is of hs400 tuning @200Mhz). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Right, makes sense. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> this patch refers to mmc_select_hs400(), make the reduce clock frequency > > >>>>>>>>>> after card timing change. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing > > >>>>>>>>>> --- > > >>>>>>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 8 ++++---- > > >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > >>>>>>>>>> index da892a5..21b811e 100644 > > >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card) > > >>>>>>>>>> int err; > > >>>>>>>>>> u8 val; > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - /* Reduce frequency to HS */ > > >>>>>>>>>> - max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr; > > >>>>>>>>>> - mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr); > > >>>>>>>>>> - > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the reason to why we change the clock frequency > > >>>>>>>>> *before* the call to __mmc_switch() below, is probably to try to be on > > >>>>>>>>> the safe side and conform to the spec. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Agree, it Must be more safe with lower clock frequency, but the > > >>>>>>>> precondition is to make the host side recognize current timing is not > > >>>>>>>> HS400 mode. it has no method to find a safe setting to ensure no > > >>>>>>>> response CRC error when reduce clock from 200Mhz to 50Mhz. > > >>>>>>>>> However, I think you have a point, as the call to __mmc_switch(), > > >>>>>>>>> passes the "send_status" parameter as false, no other command than the > > >>>>>>>>> CMD6 is sent to the card. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> yes, the send status command was sent only after __mmc_switch() done. > > >>>>>>>>>> /* Switch HS400 to HS DDR */ > > >>>>>>>>>> val = EXT_CSD_TIMING_HS; > > >>>>>>>>>> err = __mmc_switch(card, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING, > > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1253,6 +1249,10 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card) > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52); > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> + /* Reduce frequency to HS */ > > >>>>>>>>>> + max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr; > > >>>>>>>>>> + mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr); > > >>>>>>>>>> + > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps it's even more correct to change the clock frequency before > > >>>>>>>>> the call to mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52). Otherwise you > > >>>>>>>>> will be using the DDR52 timing in the controller, but with a too high > > >>>>>>>>> frequency. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> for Our host, it has no impact to change the clock before or after > > >>>>>>>> change timing, as the mmc_set_timing() is only for host side, not > > >>>>>>>> related to MMC card side and no commands sent do card before the > > >>>>>>>> timing/clock change completed. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Alright. After a second thought, it actually looks more consistent > > >>>>>>> with mmc_select_hs400() to do it after, as what you propose in > > >>>>>>> $subject patch. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So, let's keep it as is. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> err = mmc_switch_status(card); > > >>>>>>>>>> if (err) > > >>>>>>>>>> goto out_err; > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>> 1.8.1.1.dirty > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it sounds like you are trying to fix a real problem, can you > > >>>>>>>>> please provide some more information what is happening when the > > >>>>>>>>> problem occurs at your side? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Yes, I got a problem with new kernel version. with > > >>>>>>>> commit:57da0c042f4af52614f4bd1a148155a299ae5cd8, this commit makes > > >>>>>>>> re-tuning every time when access RPMB partition. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Okay, could you please add this as fixes tag for the next version of the patch. > > >>>>>>> > > > Ok, sorry for late reply due to Chinese New Year. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> in fact, our host tuning result of hs400 is very stable and almost never > > >>>>>>>> get response CRC error with clock frequency at 200Mhz. but cannot ensure > > >>>>>>>> this tuning result also suitable when running at HS400 mode @50Mhz. as I > > >>>>>>>> mentioned before, the host side does not know the reason of reduce clock > > >>>>>>>> frequency to 50Mhz at HS400 mode, so what's the host side can do is only > > >>>>>>>> reduce the bus clock to 50Mhz, even it can just only set the tuning > > >>>>>>>> setting to default when clock frequency lower than 50Mhz, but both card > > >>>>>>>> & host side are still at HS400 mode, still cannot ensure this setting is > > >>>>>>>> suitable. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Right, thanks for clarifying. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So I am expecting a new version with a fixes tag and some > > >>>>>>> clarification of the changelog, then I am ready to apply this to give > > >>>>>>> it some test. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The switch from HS400 mode is done for tuning at times when CRC errors are a > > >>>>>> possibility e.g. after a CRC error during transfer. So if the frequency is > > >>>>>> not to be reduced, then some mitigation is needed for the possibility that > > >>>>>> the CMD6 response itself will have a CRC error. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That's a good point! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> However, how can we know that a CMD6 command is successfully > > >>>>> completed, if there is CRC errors detected during the transmission? I > > >>>>> guess we can't!? > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes, in that case, the only option is to assume the CMD6 was successful, > > >>>> like in > > >>>> > > >>>> commit ef3d232245ab7a1bf361c52449e612e4c8b7c5ab > > >>>> Author: Adrian Hunter > > >>>> Date: Fri Dec 2 13:16:35 2016 +0200 > > >>>> > > >>>> mmc: mmc: Relax checking for switch errors after HS200 switch > > >>> > > >>> Well, relaxing the check for switch errors, is to me a different > > >>> thing. This means we are first doing the CMD6, then allowing the > > >>> following status command (CMD13) to have CRC errors. Actually, even > > >>> the spec mention this as a case to consider. I guess it's because the > > >>> card internally have switched to a new speed mode timing. > > >>> > > >>> Allowing CRC errors for the actual CMD6 sound more fragile to me. Of > > >>> course, we can always try and see what happens. > > >>> > > >>> Chaotian, can you give it a go? Somehow, change the call to > > >>> __mmc_switch() in mmc_hs400_to_hs200(), so the CMD6 doesn't have the > > >>> CRC flag set. @Adrian, @Ulf, another question: if remove the MMC_RSP_CRC flag, it will have big impact to all host driver, as the "mmc_resp_type()" can not get MMC_RESP_R1B return value, so many host drivers use mmc_resp_type() to get resp type. if We make CMD6 does not have CRC flag set, then We must modify the using of "mmc_resp_type()" to "mmc_resp_type() | MMC_RSP_CRC" in all host drives. the same issue occurs at other place which remove MMC_RSP_CRC(eg. mmc_cqe_recovery()). > > >>> > > > Yes, but should we add a new argument of __mmc_switch(), like "bool > > > ignore_crc" ?? for now, there are too many argument of __mmc_switch(). > > > > One solution for too many arguments is to make a structure to contain them. e.g. > > > > struct mmc_switch_args { > > u8 set; > > u8 index; > > u8 value; > > unsigned int timeout_ms; > > unsigned char timing; > > bool use_busy_signal; > > bool send_status; > > bool retry_crc_err; > > }; > > > > int __mmc_switch(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_switch_args *args) > > > Sure, I will upload new patch to do that. > > >>>> > > >>>> If we are going to do that, then we could stick with lowering the frequency > > >>>> first. > > >>> > > >>> Let's see what Chaotian's test may show. > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Also I wonder if the mediatek driver could change to fixed sampling in > > >>>> ->set_ios() when the frequency drops for HS400 mode? > > >>> > > >>> Well, this sounds like a generic problem so if this is a possible > > >>> generic solution that would be great. > > >>> > > >>> Is this what sdhci is doing already? > > >> > > >> Not at present, but some drivers seem to be adjusting their settings for > > >> HS400 based on the frequency e.g. sdhci_msm_hs400() > > > > > > It's hard to find a suitable setting for all cards when running at HS400 > > > mode @50Mhz. > > > > > > > > >