[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VnFyC8Z5iD+HF7OVVAyNjOoAJZKj9SO7jaL8q+0h8qxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:55:31 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
Ziyuan Xu <xzy.xu@...k-chips.com>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mmc: dw_mmc: Fix the CTO timeout calculation
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2017/9/28 4:56, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>
>> In the commit 03de19212ea3 ("mmc: dw_mmc: introduce timer for broken
>> command transfer over scheme") we tried to calculate the expected
>> hardware command timeout value. Unfortunately that calculation isn't
>> quite correct in all cases. It used "bus_hz" but, as far as I can
>> tell, it's supposed to use the card clock. Let's account for the div
>> value, which is documented as 2x the value stored in the register, or
>> 1 if the register is 0.
>
>
> Good catch.
> Would you mind appending a new patch to fix the drto case?
I can add it to the series. It'll be a separate patch, though, since
I wouldn't suggest backporting that one. The DRTO timeout is so long
that it's really hard to hit it in this way so I think the argument is
much more academic there. Still good to fix it, though.
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists