| Message ID | 1393012782-23917-1-git-send-email-arend@broadcom.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 02/21/2014 08:59 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the > retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first > run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: > > if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING) && host->tuning_count && > (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { > > So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host > flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only > for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be > set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed > in the first run when tuning_count is zero. > > This was seen on a host controller which indicated > SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect > that (one of) these registers is not properly set. > > Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> > Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> > --- > Noticed this patch was still not applied so please reconsider > taking it in and let me know. The patch has been rebased and > applies to the mmc-next branch. ping? Am I on some spam filter? What is needed to get this change applied? Regards, Arend > Regards, > Arend > > V3: > - remote tuning mode check for retuning timer reload > > V2: > - add more explanation to the commit message > - check host flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 9ddef47..d5b421d 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -2026,12 +2026,11 @@ out: > host->tuning_count * HZ); > /* Tuning mode 1 limits the maximum data length to 4MB */ > mmc->max_blk_count = (4 * 1024 * 1024) / mmc->max_blk_size; > - } else { > + } else if (host->flags & SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER) { > host->flags &= ~SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING; > /* Reload the new initial value for timer */ > - if (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1) > - mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + > - host->tuning_count * HZ); > + mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + > + host->tuning_count * HZ); > } > > /* > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 6 March 2014 10:29, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> wrote: > On 02/21/2014 08:59 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the >> retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first >> run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: >> >> if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING) && host->tuning_count && >> (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { >> >> So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host >> flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only >> for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be >> set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed >> in the first run when tuning_count is zero. >> >> This was seen on a host controller which indicated >> SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect >> that (one of) these registers is not properly set. >> >> Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> >> Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >> --- >> Noticed this patch was still not applied so please reconsider >> taking it in and let me know. The patch has been rebased and >> applies to the mmc-next branch. > > ping? Am I on some spam filter? What is needed to get this change applied? > > Regards, > Arend > >> Regards, >> Arend >> >> V3: >> - remote tuning mode check for retuning timer reload >> >> V2: >> - add more explanation to the commit message >> - check host flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 7 +++---- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> index 9ddef47..d5b421d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> @@ -2026,12 +2026,11 @@ out: >> host->tuning_count * HZ); >> /* Tuning mode 1 limits the maximum data length to 4MB */ >> mmc->max_blk_count = (4 * 1024 * 1024) / mmc->max_blk_size; >> - } else { >> + } else if (host->flags & SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER) { >> host->flags &= ~SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING; >> /* Reload the new initial value for timer */ >> - if (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1) >> - mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + >> - host->tuning_count * HZ); >> + mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + >> + host->tuning_count * HZ); >> } >> >> /* >> > I don't have any deeper insight about the retuning mechanism for sdhci, still this seems reasonable. Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 03/07/14 05:06, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 6 March 2014 10:29, Arend van Spriel<arend@broadcom.com> wrote: >> On 02/21/2014 08:59 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>> When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the >>> retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first >>> run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: >>> >>> if (!(host->flags& SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING)&& host->tuning_count&& >>> (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { >>> >>> So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host >>> flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only >>> for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be >>> set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed >>> in the first run when tuning_count is zero. >>> >>> This was seen on a host controller which indicated >>> SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect >>> that (one of) these registers is not properly set. >>> >>> Cc: Dong Aisheng<dongas86@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Aaron Lu<aaron.lwe@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel<arend@broadcom.com> >>> --- >>> Noticed this patch was still not applied so please reconsider >>> taking it in and let me know. The patch has been rebased and >>> applies to the mmc-next branch. >> >> ping? Am I on some spam filter? What is needed to get this change applied? Hi Chris, Did this patch fall between the cracks. If needed I can rebase and resend it once more. Regards, Arend >> Regards, >> Arend >> >>> Regards, >>> Arend >>> >>> V3: >>> - remote tuning mode check for retuning timer reload >>> >>> V2: >>> - add more explanation to the commit message >>> - check host flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 7 +++---- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> index 9ddef47..d5b421d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> @@ -2026,12 +2026,11 @@ out: >>> host->tuning_count * HZ); >>> /* Tuning mode 1 limits the maximum data length to 4MB */ >>> mmc->max_blk_count = (4 * 1024 * 1024) / mmc->max_blk_size; >>> - } else { >>> + } else if (host->flags& SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER) { >>> host->flags&= ~SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING; >>> /* Reload the new initial value for timer */ >>> - if (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1) >>> - mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + >>> - host->tuning_count * HZ); >>> + mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + >>> + host->tuning_count * HZ); >>> } >>> >>> /* >>> >> > > I don't have any deeper insight about the retuning mechanism for > sdhci, still this seems reasonable. > > Acked-by: Ulf Hansson<ulf.hansson@linaro.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 02/22/2014 03:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the > retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first > run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: > > if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING) && host->tuning_count && > (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { > > So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host > flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only > for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be > set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed > in the first run when tuning_count is zero. > > This was seen on a host controller which indicated > SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect > that (one of) these registers is not properly set. > > Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> > Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> In addition to solve your problem, this patch also makes sense in the common case, so: Reviewed-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 03/20/14 06:32, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 02/22/2014 03:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the >> retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first >> run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: >> >> if (!(host->flags& SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING)&& host->tuning_count&& >> (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { >> >> So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host >> flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only >> for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be >> set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed >> in the first run when tuning_count is zero. >> >> This was seen on a host controller which indicated >> SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect >> that (one of) these registers is not properly set. >> >> Cc: Dong Aisheng<dongas86@gmail.com> >> Cc: Aaron Lu<aaron.lwe@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel<arend@broadcom.com> > > In addition to solve your problem, this patch also makes sense in the > common case, so: > > Reviewed-by: Aaron Lu<aaron.lu@intel.com> Hi Chris, Is this patch still in your queue? Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Arend, On Tue, Mar 25 2014, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 03/20/14 06:32, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 02/22/2014 03:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>> When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the >>> retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first >>> run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: >>> >>> if (!(host->flags& SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING)&& host->tuning_count&& >>> (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { >>> >>> So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host >>> flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only >>> for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be >>> set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed >>> in the first run when tuning_count is zero. >>> >>> This was seen on a host controller which indicated >>> SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect >>> that (one of) these registers is not properly set. >>> >>> Cc: Dong Aisheng<dongas86@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Aaron Lu<aaron.lwe@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel<arend@broadcom.com> >> >> In addition to solve your problem, this patch also makes sense in the >> common case, so: >> >> Reviewed-by: Aaron Lu<aaron.lu@intel.com> > > Hi Chris, > > Is this patch still in your queue? Thanks! I've pushed this to mmc-next for 3.15 with Aaron/Ulf's ACKs now. - Chris.
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c index 9ddef47..d5b421d 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -2026,12 +2026,11 @@ out: host->tuning_count * HZ); /* Tuning mode 1 limits the maximum data length to 4MB */ mmc->max_blk_count = (4 * 1024 * 1024) / mmc->max_blk_size; - } else { + } else if (host->flags & SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER) { host->flags &= ~SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING; /* Reload the new initial value for timer */ - if (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1) - mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + - host->tuning_count * HZ); + mod_timer(&host->tuning_timer, jiffies + + host->tuning_count * HZ); } /*
When the host->tuning_count is zero it means that the retuning is disabled. This is checked on the first run of sdhci_execute_tuning() by the if statement below: if (!(host->flags & SDHCI_NEEDS_RETUNING) && host->tuning_count && (host->tuning_mode == SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1)) { So only when tuning_count is non-zero it will set the host flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER. The else statement is only for re-programming the timer, which means that flag must be set. Because that is not checked the else statement is executed in the first run when tuning_count is zero. This was seen on a host controller which indicated SDHCI_TUNING_MODE_1 (0) and tuning_count being zero. Suspect that (one of) these registers is not properly set. Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> --- Noticed this patch was still not applied so please reconsider taking it in and let me know. The patch has been rebased and applies to the mmc-next branch. Regards, Arend V3: - remote tuning mode check for retuning timer reload V2: - add more explanation to the commit message - check host flag SDHCI_USING_RETUNING_TIMER --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)