Re: [PATCH V3] mmc: sdhci-msm: Update the software timeout value for sdhc

[sbhanu@codeaurora.org]

On 2021-07-15 10:59, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 5/07/21 6:50 pm, Shaik Sajida Bhanu wrote:
>> Whenever SDHC run at clock rate 50MHZ or below, the hardware data
>> timeout value will be 21.47secs, which is approx. 22secs and we have
>> a current software timeout value as 10secs. We have to set software
>> timeout value more than the hardware data timeout value to avioid 
>> seeing
>> the below register dumps.
>> 
>> [  332.953670] mmc2: Timeout waiting for hardware interrupt.
>> [  332.959608] mmc2: sdhci: ============ SDHCI REGISTER DUMP 
>> ===========
>> [  332.966450] mmc2: sdhci: Sys addr:  0x00000000 | Version:  
>> 0x00007202
>> [  332.973256] mmc2: sdhci: Blk size:  0x00000200 | Blk cnt:  
>> 0x00000001
>> [  332.980054] mmc2: sdhci: Argument:  0x00000000 | Trn mode: 
>> 0x00000027
>> [  332.986864] mmc2: sdhci: Present:   0x01f801f6 | Host ctl: 
>> 0x0000001f
>> [  332.993671] mmc2: sdhci: Power:     0x00000001 | Blk gap:  
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.000583] mmc2: sdhci: Wake-up:   0x00000000 | Clock:    
>> 0x00000007
>> [  333.007386] mmc2: sdhci: Timeout:   0x0000000e | Int stat: 
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.014182] mmc2: sdhci: Int enab:  0x03ff100b | Sig enab: 
>> 0x03ff100b
>> [  333.020976] mmc2: sdhci: ACmd stat: 0x00000000 | Slot int: 
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.027771] mmc2: sdhci: Caps:      0x322dc8b2 | Caps_1:   
>> 0x0000808f
>> [  333.034561] mmc2: sdhci: Cmd:       0x0000183a | Max curr: 
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.041359] mmc2: sdhci: Resp[0]:   0x00000900 | Resp[1]:  
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.048157] mmc2: sdhci: Resp[2]:   0x00000000 | Resp[3]:  
>> 0x00000000
>> [  333.054945] mmc2: sdhci: Host ctl2: 0x00000000
>> [  333.059657] mmc2: sdhci: ADMA Err:  0x00000000 | ADMA Ptr:
>> 0x0000000ffffff218
>> [  333.067178] mmc2: sdhci_msm: ----------- VENDOR REGISTER DUMP
>> -----------
>> [  333.074343] mmc2: sdhci_msm: DLL sts: 0x00000000 | DLL cfg:
>> 0x6000642c | DLL cfg2: 0x0020a000
>> [  333.083417] mmc2: sdhci_msm: DLL cfg3: 0x00000000 | DLL usr ctl:
>> 0x00000000 | DDR cfg: 0x80040873
>> [  333.092850] mmc2: sdhci_msm: Vndr func: 0x00008a9c | Vndr func2 :
>> 0xf88218a8 Vndr func3: 0x02626040
>> [  333.102371] mmc2: sdhci: 
>> ============================================
>> 
>> So, set software timeout value more than hardware timeout value.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Shaik Sajida Bhanu <sbhanu@codeaurora.org>
> 
> A couple of minor nitpicks below.  Fix those and you can add:
> 
> Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes since V2:
>> 	- Updated 22 with 22LL to avoid compiler warning as suggested by
>> 	  Adrian Hunter.
>> 	- Added a check to update software data timeout value if its value is
>> 	  less than the calculated hardware data timeout value as suggested
>> 	  by Veerabhadrarao Badiganti.
>> 
>> Changes since V1:
>> 	- Moved software data timeout update part to qcom specific file
>> 	  as suggested by Veerabhadrarao Badiganti.
>> ---
>>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c 
>> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> index e44b7a6..64fb85e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>> @@ -2089,6 +2089,23 @@ static void sdhci_msm_cqe_disable(struct 
>> mmc_host *mmc, bool recovery)
>>  	sdhci_cqe_disable(mmc, recovery);
>>  }
>> 
>> +static void sdhci_msm_set_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct 
>> mmc_command *cmd)
>> +{
>> +
> 
> Unnecessary blank line.
Sure i will address this in my next patch set , Thanks for the review.
> 
>> +	u32 count, start = 15;
>> +
>> +	__sdhci_set_timeout(host, cmd);
>> +	count = sdhci_readb(host, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Update software timeout value if its value is less than hardware 
>> data
>> +	 * timeout value. Qcom SoC hardware data timeout value was 
>> calculated
>> +	 * using 4 * MCLK * 2^(count + 13). where MCLK = 1 / host->clock.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (cmd && cmd->data && host->clock > 400000 && host->clock <= 
>> 50000000
>> +			&& ((1 << (count + start)) > (10 * host->clock)))
> 
> '&&' is better at the end of the previous line
> 
> Also fewer parenthesis is more readable e.g.
> 
> 	if (cmd && cmd->data && host->clock > 400000 &&
> 	    host->clock <= 50000000 &&
> 	    (1 << (count + start)) > (10 * host->clock))
> 
Sure i will address this in my next patch set , Thanks for the review.
>> +		host->data_timeout = 22LL * NSEC_PER_SEC;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static const struct cqhci_host_ops sdhci_msm_cqhci_ops = {
>>  	.enable		= sdhci_msm_cqe_enable,
>>  	.disable	= sdhci_msm_cqe_disable,
>> @@ -2438,6 +2455,7 @@ static const struct sdhci_ops sdhci_msm_ops = {
>>  	.irq	= sdhci_msm_cqe_irq,
>>  	.dump_vendor_regs = sdhci_msm_dump_vendor_regs,
>>  	.set_power = sdhci_set_power_noreg,
>> +	.set_timeout = sdhci_msm_set_timeout,
>>  };
>> 
>>  static const struct sdhci_pltfm_data sdhci_msm_pdata = {
>>