[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <54448023.1050008@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:23:15 +0900
From: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
To: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: Remove old card detect infrastructure
Hi.
On 10/17/2014 09:44 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Alim,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>> The dw_mmc driver had a bunch of code that ran whenever a card was
>>>> ejected and inserted. However, this code was old and crufty and
>>>> should be removed. Some evidence that it's really not needed:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Is is supposed to be legal to use 'cd-gpio' on dw_mmc instead of
>>>> using the built-in card detect mechanism. The 'cd-gpio' code
>>>> doesn't run any of the crufty old code but yet still works.
>>>>
>>>> 2. While looking at this, I realized that my old change (369ac86 mmc:
>>>> dw_mmc: don't queue up a card detect at slot startup) actually
>>>> castrated the old code a little bit already and nobody noticed.
>>>> Specifically "last_detect_state" was left as 0 at bootup. That
>>>> means that on the first card removal none of the crufty code ran.
>>>>
>>> Yes, right most of these codes are _almost_ never call. But I see
>>> dw_mci_reset() being called on card removal (after first
>>> insert/removal).
>>
>> Right. The old crufty code was called on the 2nd removal, not the
>> 1st. That meant that the two were accidentally different. My point
>> was that if the old code was really required that someone would have
>> noticed crashes on the 1st removal after each boot. Since nobody is
>> reporting crashes with that then it means it can't be too terrible.
>>
>> One thing to note: I remember in the last Chromebook project you were
>> trying to track down crashes associated with constant eject / insert
>> of SD Cards. I wonder if my patch will fix these crashes?
>>
> Ah, yes, reproducing that and checking with this patch will be really
> interesting.
>
>>
>>> I tested this on exynos5800 and this looks working fine. We need to
>>> test once cross suspend/resume as well.
>>
>> Good idea. Can you test that? I know that there's been lots of flux
>> with suspend/resume on exynos and I'm not sure I have all the latest
>> patches, but I'll search for them if you are unable to test easily.
>>
> Sure, I will do that..but probably sometime next week, as I will out
> of office for few days.
>>
>>> And as Jaehoon pointed out,probably lets look in TRM if there are some
>>> recommended steps for cd-detect.
>>> Otherwise this looks good to me.
>>
>> If you see some other requirement than the one I addressed in my email
>> to Jaehoon, please let me know.
I know there is no other requirement for detecting card.
So this patch can be applied after testing the above case(suspend/resume).
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>>
> Well, as most of the current CD detect code are dead code, so lets see
> more test results, specially across a suspend/resume and warm reboot
> test and take this forward.
>>
>> -Doug
>
>
>
--
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