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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,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 CED3BC04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F5321019 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=st.com header.i=@st.com header.b="WOZMqST6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726933AbfEUHiY (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 03:38:24 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:44452 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726006AbfEUHiY (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 03:38:24 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0046661.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx08-00178001.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4L7VAiP003069; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:38:10 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=st.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=STMicroelectronics; bh=VO62M0H+Pp6PuHe4pwdgIh9u2uQFEKGsAdpei4nIXQM=; b=WOZMqST6Q+Cbk+rRQt5qd7OyxYoG4vgoyOT1cv3TjQMD1V+RmQfS8fNp/cdCGduWP3sK sSeLo1axEdDF1nsjR5NWrW4G6n/IGIHqc8y+mt5ZkjFbLX67KyZhr8PY8x5XDabJQTF2 QVKbosocLnIOUkA2SCuLix9piKZjk4HAeItiOoFTpC+ZFOuNxtDHY/8SE0ECmdAR2hhq D7sE/lsmp+sMU39CsyxG/O0KiF3oFYWEbg+pKA6VHqd39t3r1MaZX0cT4jjlVqoX5wmS X102+33jF34intAYJLv5itfafcPGRT/TjdDI/aSy2z8KFIdgGsJq1Mql7SeSkMXZG/n9 1g== Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx08-00178001.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sj8xg7tsr-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 21 May 2019 09:38:10 +0200 Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (zeta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 79C1731; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:38:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (sfhdag6node1.st.com [10.75.127.16]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 16F6515E9; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:38:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.48.0.237] (10.75.127.46) by SFHDAG6NODE1.st.com (10.75.127.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:38:08 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/5] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant To: Ulf Hansson CC: Rob Herring , Srinivas Kandagatla , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , DTML , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , References: <1556264798-18540-1-git-send-email-ludovic.Barre@st.com> <74b91eb4-e5a3-38b2-f732-29cdd058eb6a@st.com> From: Ludovic BARRE Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 09:38:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.46] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG5NODE1.st.com (10.75.127.13) To SFHDAG6NODE1.st.com (10.75.127.16) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-21_01:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org hi Ulf Just a "gentleman ping" about the rest of series. "mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant" Regards Ludo On 5/3/19 3:29 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 14:06, Ludovic BARRE wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/30/19 1:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 09:46, Ludovic Barre wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Ludovic Barre >>>> >>>> This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant. >>>> Some adaptations are required: >>>> -Avoid to check and poll busy status when is not expected. >>>> -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are >>>> different. >>>> -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register. >>>> >>>> V2: >>>> -mmci_cmd_irq cleanup in separate patch. >>>> -simplify the busy_detect_flag exclude >>>> -replace sdmmc specific comment in >>>> "mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq" >>>> to focus on common behavior >>>> >>>> Ludovic Barre (5): >>>> mmc: mmci: cleanup mmci_cmd_irq for busy detect feature >>>> mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq >>>> mmc: mmci: fix clear of busy detect status >>>> mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature >>>> mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant >>>> >>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++ >>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.4 >>>> >>> >>> Ludovic, just wanted to let you know that I am reviewing and testing >>> this series. >>> >>> However, while running some tests on Ux500 for validating the busy >>> detection code, even without your series applied, I encounter some odd >>> behaviors. I am looking into the problem to understand better and will >>> let you know as soon as I have some more data to share. >> >> Oops, don't hesitate to share your status, if I could help. > > Thanks! Good and bad news here, then. > > I now understand what is going on - and there is certainly room for > improvements here, but more importantly the actual mmci busy detection > works as expected. > > When it comes to improvements, the main issue I have found is how we > treat DATA WRITES. In many cases we simply don't use the HW busy > detection at all, but instead rely on the mmc core to send CMD13 in a > loop to poll. Well, then if the polling would have consisted of a > couple of CMD13s that wouldn't be an issue, but my observations is > rather that the numbers of CMD13 sent to poll is in the range or > hundreds/thousands - per each WRITE request! > > I am going to send a patch (or two) that improves the behavior. It > might even involve changing parts in core layer, not sure how the end > result will look like yet. > > In any case, I have applied patch 1 and patch2 for next, as the tests > turned out well at my side. I also took the liberty of updating some > of the comments/changelogs, please have look and tell if there is > something you want to change. > > I will continue with the rest of series next week. > > Kind regards > Uffe >