[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <453E6410.4050002@drzeus.cx>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:05:52 +0200
From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>
To: philipl@...rt.org
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Lavinen <jarkko.lavinen@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18 RFC] mmc: Add support for mmc v4 wide-bus modes
philipl@...rt.org wrote:
> Hi Pierre, Jarkko,
>
Hi Philip,
I've finally gotten around to reviewing this patch. :)
> Here's the next change to add support for switching into the wide-bus
> modes. It obviously builds on top of the previous high-speed patch.
>
> Wide-bus is a more confusing situation for two reasons that I've
> mentioned in passing before, but which I now need to go into more
> detail about:
>
> 1) Bus testing:
Problems aside, from what I can see in the application note (in
particular the flow charts), this part is optional. So I'd like to see
this as a separate feature.
>
> 2) Power classes: The mmc v4 spec allows a card to indicate that it would
> like to draw more current than normal when running in wide-bus modes. It
> defines separate power classes for each combination of 26/52MHZ and 4/8bit.
> We currently don't have the infrastructure to query whether a higher power
> level is safe, and I suspect we don't even have that information for some
> of the support controllers. eg: the SDHCI spec doesn't say anything about
> current draw.
Actually, SDHCI controller state how much power they can supply at
different voltages. So the information is there in that case. But I
think we'll see how much of a problem it is in practice first.
>
> Theoretically, those numbers should be 1.5, 3 and 12 MBps respectively, so there's
> some overhead in there growing faster than the theoretical transfer rate - but that's
> a separate problem. :-)
>
oprofile to the rescue ;)
> +
> + cmd.opcode = MMC_BUSTEST_W;
> + cmd.arg = 0;
> + cmd.flags = MMC_RSP_R1 | MMC_CMD_ADTC;
> +
The application note seemed to indicate that it's R1b here.
> + data.blksz_bits = 1;
blksz_bits is no more. What tree are you doing your development against? :)
> @@ -1029,10 +1136,9 @@
> "any high-speed modes.\n",
> mmc_hostname(card->host));
> mmc_card_set_bad(card);
> - /* printk a warning */
> continue;
> }
> -
> +
> /* Activate highspeed support. */
> cmd.opcode = MMC_SWITCH;
> cmd.arg = (MMC_SWITCH_MODE_WRITE_BYTE << 24) |
Huh?
> @@ -1050,6 +1156,56 @@
> }
>
> mmc_card_set_highspeed(card);
> +
> + /* Check for host support for wide-bus modes. */
> + if (host->caps & MMC_CAP_8_BIT_DATA) {
> + host_bus_width = MMC_BUS_WIDTH_8;
> + card_bus_width = EXT_CSD_BUS_WIDTH_8;
> + } else if (host->caps & MMC_CAP_4_BIT_DATA) {
> + host_bus_width = MMC_BUS_WIDTH_4;
> + card_bus_width = EXT_CSD_BUS_WIDTH_4;
> + } else {
> + continue;
> + }
> +
A bit of premature optimisation. Do the if:s when needed instead. It
keeps the code readable.
> +#if 0
Never acceptable. Keep such stuff in your development tree.
> +
> + /*
> + * MMC v4 cards can indicate they would like to draw more
> + * than the default amount of current in wide-bus modes.
> + * We currently don't have an infrastructure to query the host
> + * as to whether these higher levels are safe - so we will
> + * never switch the card into a higher draw mode.
> + * Supposedly, allowing the card to draw more current will
> + * let it perform better, but the specs seem to indicate that
> + * the card will function correctly without the mode change.
> + * Empirical testing supports this interpretation.
> + */
It's sufficient to have this in the commit message.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists