[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2119c4c1fa8a6943a2f8da05f3be2db2@walle.cc>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:52:31 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: "Y.B. Lu" <yangbo.lu@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
yangbo lu <yangbo.lu@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: fixup PRESENT_STATE read
Am 2016-11-14 10:37, schrieb Adrian Hunter:
> On 14/11/16 10:50, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am 2016-11-14 04:00, schrieb Y.B. Lu:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michael Walle [mailto:michael@...le.cc]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:04 AM
>>>> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; Ulf Hansson; Adrian Hunter; yangbo
>>>> lu;
>>>> Michael Walle
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: fixup PRESENT_STATE read
>>>>
>>>> Since commit 87a18a6a5652 ("mmc: mmc: Use ->card_busy() to detect
>>>> busy
>>>> cards in __mmc_switch()") the ESDHC driver is broken:
>>>> mmc0: Card stuck in programming state! __mmc_switch
>>>> mmc0: error -110 whilst initialising MMC card
>>>>
>>>> Since this commit __mmc_switch() uses ->card_busy(), which is
>>>> sdhci_card_busy() for the esdhc driver. sdhci_card_busy() uses the
>>>> PRESENT_STATE register, specifically the DAT0 signal level bit. But
>>>> the
>>>> ESDHC uses a non-conformant PRESENT_STATE register, thus a read
>>>> fixup is
>>>> required to make the driver work again.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
>>>> Fixes: 87a18a6a5652 ("mmc: mmc: Use ->card_busy() to detect busy
>>>> cards in
>>>> __mmc_switch()")
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>> - use lower bits of the original value (that was actually a typo)
>>>> - add fixes tag
>>>> - fix typo
>>>>
>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
>>>> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-
>>>> of-esdhc.c
>>>> index fb71c86..f9c84bb 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
>>>> @@ -66,6 +66,18 @@ static u32 esdhc_readl_fixup(struct sdhci_host
>>>> *host,
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The DAT[3:0] line signal levels and the CMD line signal
>>>> level is
>>>> + * not compatible with standard SDHC register. Move the
>>>> corresponding
>>>> + * bits around.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (spec_reg == SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) {
>>>> + ret = value & ~0xf8000000;
>>>
>>> [Lu Yangbo-B47093] I think the bits which should be cleaned before
>>> following '|=' are 0x01f00000 not 0xf8000000, right?
>>> :)
>>
>> Its neither 0x01f00000 nor 0xf8000000 :( I'll put the bits definition
>> into
>> the comment the next time, so everyone can review them. bit[31:24] are
>> the
>> line DAT[7:0] line signal level. bit[23] is command signal level. All
>> other
>> bits are the same as in the standard SDHC PRESENT_STATE register.
>>
>> I want to keep all but the upper 9 bits from the original value,
>> therefore,
>> this should be the correct mask:
>> ret = value & ~0xff800000;
>
> Why keep bits 22:20 ? Isn't it more logical to keep 19:0 (i.e. ret =
> value
> & 0xfffff)
These are 0 according to the datasheet but of course, it makes more
sense to mask these, too.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists