[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5459B516.30300@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:26:46 -0800
From: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
"Peter Griffin" <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
"Piotr Krol" <pietrushnic@...il.com>
CC: <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add verify for 32-bit back-to-back
workaround
On 14-11-04 08:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 12:36 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
>> Add a verify option to driver to print out an error message if a
>> potential back to back write could cause a clock domain issue.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-bcm2835.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-bcm2835.c
>
>> static inline void bcm2835_sdhci_writel(struct sdhci_host *host,
>> u32 val, int reg)
>> {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_BCM2835_VERIFY_WORKAROUND
>> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>> + struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv;
>> +
>> + if (bcm2835_host->previous_reg == reg) {
>> + if ((reg != SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL)
>> + && (reg != SDHCI_CLOCK_CONTROL)) {
>> + dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
>> + "back-to-back write to 0x%x\n", reg);
>
> This fires a *ton* on reg 0x20 and 0x30 on my rev 2 model B with the
> patches applied on top of next-20141031. Without the patches applied,
> everything works fine. As far as I can tell, SD card accesses no longer
> work (or perhaps there's just so much log spew over serial that it takes
> more than 1.5 minutes to get to the login prompt).
>
Thanks for testing. Like I said in the cover message - I've never run
this on a PI actually. I've run it on other hardware with the same core
arasan block having the same clock domain issue. The registers printed
out do not have the clock domain issue - I'm still getting more details
from the silicon designers on this.
Without the verify patch the performance is actually quite good. See
tests result from Piotr:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:02:59PM +0000, Scott Branden wrote:
> Please let me know how this works for you.
>
Scott,
please ignore my previous mail I made mistake when applying patches.
Results of testing your code on top of 3.18-rc2 with Kingston SDC10/8GB:
* when compiling with CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_BCM2835_VERIFY_WORKAROUND=y there
is a
lot of:
sdhci-bcm2835 20300000.sdhci: back-to-back write to 0x30
and
sdhci-bcm2835 20300000.sdhci: back-to-back write to 0x20
* performance w/o patches:
yncraspberrypi:~$ sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K
count=1024; sy
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 787.384 s, 666 kB/s
real 13m7.404s
user 0m0.080s
sys 0m56.300s
pi@...pberrypi:~$ time dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 34.2115 s, 15.3 MB/s
real 0m34.232s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m31.190s
* performance w/ patches is great IMHO:
yncraspberrypi:~$ sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K
count=1024; sy
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 45.4886 s, 11.5 MB/s
real 0m45.515s
user 0m0.060s
sys 0m30.050s time dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 33.6292 s, 15.6 MB/s
real 0m33.649s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m30.730s
Great work!
Have you got plans to enable DMA for this controller ? sys CPU load is quite
big for above code, my tests with bcm2835-mmc and slave_sg from RaspberryPi
Foundation gives about 15s instead of 31s. It would be great to relive CPU a
little bit.
Best Regards,
Piotr Król
--
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