From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
To: Raul Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>,
hongjiefang <hongjiefang@asrmicro.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@ni.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mmc: sdhci: Manually check card status after reset
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:30:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fcdf6cc4-2729-abe2-85c8-b0d04901c5ae@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190610163252.GA227032@google.com>
On 10/06/19 7:32 PM, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:17:31PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> + Adrian
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 18:05, Raul Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:38:20AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 19:55, Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> First off, thanks for the review.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a race condition between resetting the SDHCI controller and
>>>>> disconnecting the card.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>> 0) Card is connected and transferring data
>>>>> 1) mmc_sd_reset is called to reset the controller due to a data error
>>>>
>>>> I assume you refer to mmc_sd_hw_reset()? In that case, I think you
>>>> have interpreted the purpose of mmc_sd_hw_reset() slightly wrong. It's
>>>> responsibility is to reset the SD-card and not the host/controller.
>>> You are correct. I was looking at a 4.14 kernel where it's called
>>> mmc_sd_reset. 4.19 and above call it mmc_sd_hw_reset.
>>>
>>> All I was trying to convey here was that a block error will eventually
>>> call sdhci_set_ios with SOFT_RESET_ALL via:
>>> mmc_blk_reset
>>> mmc_hw_reset
>>> mmc_sd_hw_reset
>>> mmc_power_cycle
>>> mmc_power_off
>>> mmc_set_initial_state
>>> sdhci_set_ios
>>> sdhci_reinit
>>> sdhci_init
>>> sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL);
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether there some additional "reset" of the controller needed, that
>>>> is assumed by the core, to be managed via the ->set_ios() callback for
>>>> the host.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) sdhci_set_ios calls sdhci_do_reset
>>>>> 3) SOFT_RESET_ALL is toggled which clears the IRQs the controller has
>>>>> configured.
>>>>> 4) Wait for SOFT_RESET_ALL to clear
>>>>> 5) CD logic notices card is gone and CARD_PRESENT goes low, but since the
>>>>> IRQs are not configured a CARD_REMOVED interrupt is never raised.
>>>>> 6) IRQs are enabled again
>>>>> 7) mmc layer never notices the device is disconnected. The SDHCI layer
>>>>> will keep returning -ENOMEDIUM. This results in a card that is always
>>>>> present and not functional.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like host specific problems, which most likely should be
>>>> fixed in host driver, solely. Unless I am missing something, of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> So in sdhci_do_reset we call the reset callback which is typically
>>> sdhci_reset. sdhci_reset can wait for up to 100ms waiting for the
>>> controller to reset. If SDHCI_RESET_ALL was passed as the flag, the
>>> controller will clear the IRQ mask. If during that 100ms the card is
>>> removed there is no notification to the MMC system that the card was
>>> removed. So it seems like the card is always present.
>>
>> So you are saying that the problem occurs when the card is removed
>> during this 100ms period?
> Exactly. Thought I think most controllers reset fast enough to where
> that window is very small. But for this AMD controller we need to do a
> full reset which takes a while, so we can see the problem.
>
>>
>> I assume there a way for sdhci to re-validate whether the card has
>> been removed during this period, right?
> I'll let Adrian chime in here.
>
>>>
>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/sd.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>>>> index 265e1aeeb9d8..9206c4297d66 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd.c
>>>>> @@ -1242,7 +1242,27 @@ static int mmc_sd_runtime_resume(struct mmc_host *host)
>>>>>
>>>>> static int mmc_sd_hw_reset(struct mmc_host *host)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + int present;
>>>>> mmc_power_cycle(host, host->card->ocr);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + present = host->ops->get_cd(host);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* The card status could have changed while resetting. */
>>>>> + if ((mmc_card_removed(host->card) && present) ||
>>>>> + (!mmc_card_removed(host->card) && !present)) {
>>>>> + pr_info("%s: card status changed during reset\n",
>>>>> + mmc_hostname(host));
>>>>> + host->ops->card_event(host);
>>>>> + mmc_detect_change(host, 0);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Don't perform unnecessary transactions if the card is missing. */
>>>>> + if (!present) {
>>>>> + pr_info("%s: card was removed during reset\n",
>>>>> + mmc_hostname(host));
>>>>> + return -ENOMEDIUM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> When doing a mmc_hw_reset() (which ends up calling mmc_sd_hw_reset()
>>>> in case of SD cards), we are making a final attempt to make the card
>>>> functional again, via a power cycle and a re-init of it.
>>>>
>>>> In this path, we don't care whether the card is removed, as that
>>>> should have been detected already when the block layer calls
>>>> mmc_detect_card_removed().
>>>
>>> mmc_detect_card_removed has the guard `host->detect_change` to
>>> prevent it from checking the card status again. So maybe the fix to the
>>> missing interrupt/race condition is to set `host->detect_change = 1`
>>> from sdhci_do_reset after calling the reset handler. This way there will
>>> always be a single poll after a full reset so the correct card status can
>>> be detected?
>>
>> It sounds like you should call mmc_detect_change(), after the reset to
>> let the core check for cards that may have been removed/inserted.
>>
>> Would that work?
> Yeah, I could add `mmc_detect_change()` to the AMD SDHCI patch. I just
> thought it would be better to fix the potential race condition at a
> higher level. Though I'm happy to move it to the AMD patch. Let me know.
Does the following work?
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index 0cd5f2ce98df..f672171246b0 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -341,8 +341,19 @@ static void sdhci_init(struct sdhci_host *host, int soft)
static void sdhci_reinit(struct sdhci_host *host)
{
+ u32 cd = host->ier & (SDHCI_INT_CARD_REMOVE | SDHCI_INT_CARD_INSERT);
+
sdhci_init(host, 0);
sdhci_enable_card_detection(host);
+
+ /*
+ * A change to the card detect bits indicates a change in present state,
+ * refer sdhci_set_card_detection(). A card detect interrupt might have
+ * been missed while the host controller was being reset, so trigger a
+ * rescan to check.
+ */
+ if (cd != (host->ier & (SDHCI_INT_CARD_REMOVE | SDHCI_INT_CARD_INSERT)))
+ mmc_detect_change(host->mmc, msecs_to_jiffies(200));
}
static void __sdhci_led_activate(struct sdhci_host *host)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-11 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-01 17:54 Raul E Rangel
2019-05-01 17:54 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Quirk for AMD SDHC Device 0x7906 Raul E Rangel
2019-05-02 6:32 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-05-02 15:42 ` Raul Rangel
2019-05-12 17:04 ` S-k, Shyam-sundar
2019-05-13 6:44 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-05-28 7:41 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-06-03 20:34 ` Raul Rangel
2019-05-03 15:12 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] mmc: sdhci: Manually check card status after reset Raul Rangel
2019-05-08 19:00 ` Raul Rangel
2019-05-28 7:38 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-06-07 16:05 ` Raul Rangel
2019-06-10 16:17 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-06-10 16:32 ` Raul Rangel
2019-06-11 10:30 ` Adrian Hunter [this message]
2019-06-19 14:56 ` Raul Rangel
2019-08-01 15:16 ` Raul Rangel
2019-08-02 4:58 ` Adrian Hunter
2019-08-05 16:49 ` Raul Rangel
2019-08-06 5:51 ` Adrian Hunter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fcdf6cc4-2729-abe2-85c8-b0d04901c5ae@intel.com \
--to=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=djkurtz@chromium.org \
--cc=hongjiefang@asrmicro.com \
--cc=kyle.roeschley@ni.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rrangel@chromium.org \
--cc=shawn.lin@rock-chips.com \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome