[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090311140219.GA1475@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:02:19 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Wolfgang Mües <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de>
Cc: Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] mmc_spi: allow higher timeouts for SPI mode
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Wolfgang Mües wrote:
> From: Wolfgang Muees <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de>
>
> o Some SD cards have very high timeouts in SPI mode.
> So adjust the timeouts from theory to practice.
>
[...]
> + /*
> + * Some cards need very high timeouts if driven in SPI mode.
> + * The worst observed timeout was 900ms after writing a
> + * continuous stream of data until the internal logic
> + * overflowed.
> + */
> + if (mmc_host_is_spi(card->host)) {
> + if (data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE) {
> + if (data->timeout_ns < 1000000000)
> + data->timeout_ns = 1000000000; /* 1s */
I am correct in thinking that this patch, in conjuction with your other
patch, "[PATCH 6/7] mmc_spi: convert timeout handling to jiffies and avoid
busy waiting", will now penalize my working card and mandate a timeout
of 1 second?
Without your patch 6 at least mmc_spi_skip() would busy-wait for the
response, and if my card completed in less than 1 second then it'd just
return quicker.
It seems you've introduced a performance hit on all MMC over SPI cards.
--
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