[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181107084741.GA31092@kunai>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:47:41 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@...labora.co.uk>
Cc: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hongjie Fang <hongjiefang@...micro.com>,
Bastian Stender <bst@...gutronix.de>,
Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@...com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Harish Jenny K N <harish_kandiga@...tor.com>,
Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: core: Remove timeout when enabling cache
> That also happens to be one of the cards we deploy; However i did
> wonder about adding a quirk but decided against it as it was not clear
> to me from the specification that CACHE ON really is meant to complete
> within GENERIC_CMD6_TIMEOUT. That and i fret about ending up in hit-a-
> mole games as the failure is really quite tedious (boot failure).
I agree that we should use the more defensive variant as a default. I
mean there should be no performance regression since most cards will
respond just faster, or? The only downside I could see is that we might
miss a real timeout with no bounds set and might get stuck? Maybe it is
worth contacting eMMC spec people to at least know what is the expected
behaviour?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists