[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoxTH_-U_Aj0jHWPKbwd+4OoOYBTdOeD-6SpG4XyM=3AA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:08:17 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Alex Lemberg <Alex.Lemberg@...disk.com>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
"linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: core: add auto bkops support
[...]
>>> If I am not wrong, in current implementation of runtime suspend,
>>> the driver stops BKOPS (send HPI) just before sending sleep command,
>>> see _mmc_suspend(), depends on “MMC_CAP_AGGRESSIVE_PM” flag.
>>> In this case, the eMMC device will not have enough time to perform internal
>>> BKOPS in both – Manual and Auto BKOPS configurations.
>>>
>>
>> ye, so it seems a pre-exiting issue before introducing auto bkops?
>> I think we can push another patch to improve it but not handling
>> it for this $SUBJECT, does it sound ok to you?
>
> Runtime suspend for eMMC has a default auto-suspend delay of 3 seconds
> (refer mmc_blk_probe()). Isn't that when auto bkops would happen?
That's correct.
So perhaps we should extend the default auto-suspend delay?
The SD case actually have the same issue, as I some background
operations exists there as well.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists