[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110224204352.GB9841@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:43:52 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
Cc: Philip Rakity <prakity@...vell.com>,
"Dong, Chuanxiao" <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
Jae hoon Chung <jh80.chung@...il.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1]mmc: set timeout for SDHCI host before sending busy
cmd
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:04PM +0000, Chris Ball wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:32:30AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote:
> > proposed this a while ago and strongly support just removing the quirk for broken timeout and setting the timeout value to maximum of 0xE.
> >
> > This also handles the case of the sd device having a timeout value too low. In my testing I have come across SD cards that do not provide the correct value.
> > We force our pxa168, pxa910, and mmp2 controllers to have 0xE.
>
> Yeah, OLPC's CaFe controller -- which might be the same hardware as yours,
> actually -- has the same problem.
>
> Does anyone know of a reason (beyond strict spec-compliance, I suppose)
> for honoring the timeout value rather than using 0xE everywhere? If not,
> I'm willing to try out Philip's suggestion.
+1. A full cycle in linux-next might an idea to be on the safe side? That would
be 2.6.40-material then. Or too slow?
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists