[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqjG=yxDcwnk4jbXMZ05hMkWR2x37uVpRNd_11-eB4G7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:18:06 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Paweł Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"tgih.jun@...sung.com" <tgih.jun@...sung.com>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...era.com>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"zhenfu.fang" <zhenfu.fang@...k-chips.com>,
Eddie Cai <cf@...k-chips.com>, lintao <lintao@...k-chips.com>,
chenfen <chenfen@...k-chips.com>, zyf <zyf@...k-chips.com>,
Jianqun Xu <xjq@...k-chips.com>,
Tao Huang <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
姚智情 <yzq@...k-chips.com>,
Han Jiang <hj@...k-chips.com>,
Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>,
zhangqing <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
Lin Huang <hl@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmc: core: use card pointer as the first parameter of execute_tuning()
On 26 January 2015 at 18:45, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 26 January 2015 at 12:19, Addy Ke <addy.ke@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>>> We need to take the card pointer in execute_tuning() for mmc_send_status(),
>>
>> mmc_send_status() is an mmc core function, not intended for host's to call.
>>
>>> but mmc->card is NULL in tuning state. So we need change the first parameter
>>> of execute_tuning() to card pointer(struct mmc_card * card).
>>
>> So, why do we need this?
>
> I asked Addy to post upstream against mmc_send_tuning(), but I guess
> he didn't (he posted against Alex's NAKed patch instead).
>
> ...when I talked to him about it, Addy was asserting that when tuning
> fails it is important (at least on dw_mmc on rk3288) that we wait for
> the card to stop being busy and that the way to detect was using
> mmc_send_status().
So, could that be due to the internal logic of the error handling in
dw_mmc driver? Or you think this is a generic issue?
According to the specifications (eMMC and SD) both states that the
tuning command has an R1 response. So, there shouldn't be any busy
signalling involved - at least according to spec.
>
> That would mean that against upstream you'd need to change
> mmc_send_tuning() to take in the card as well (or move the "host->card
> = card" assignment to before UHS init, which seems less desirable?)
>
> What do you think about that? Is there a better solution?
Why do we need to change mmc_send_tuning()? I thought the issue was
that mmc_send_status(), which currently takes "card" as a parameter.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
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