Message-ID: <1549937058.16070.5.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:04:18 +0800
From:   Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
CC:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        "Simon Horman" <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        Kyle Roeschley <kyle.roeschley@...com>,
        Hongjie Fang <hongjiefang@...micro.com>,
        "Harish Jenny K N" <harish_kandiga@...tor.com>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmc: Fix HS setting in mmc_hs400_to_hs200()

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 15:42 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 5/02/19 3:06 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 14:42, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/02/19 12:54 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/02/19 10:10 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 02:38, Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 16:58 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 08:53, Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mmc_hs400_to_hs200() begins with the card and host in HS400 mode.
> >>>>>>>> Therefore, any commands sent to the card should use HS400 timing.
> >>>>>>>> It is incorrect to reduce frequency to 50Mhz before sending the switch
> >>>>>>>> command, in this case, only reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz but without
> >>>>>>>> host timming change, host is still in hs400 mode but clock changed from
> >>>>>>>> 200Mhz to 50Mhz, which makes the tuning result unsuitable and cause
> >>>>>>>> the switch command gets response CRC error.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> According the eMMC spec there is no violation by decreasing the clock
> >>>>>>> frequency like this. We can use whatever value <=200MHz.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, perhaps in practice this becomes an issue, due to the tuning
> >>>>>>> for HS400 has been done on the "current" frequency.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As as start, I think you need to clarify this in the changelog.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz is no Spec violation, but it may
> >>>>>> cause __mmc_switch() gets response CRC error, decreasing the clock but
> >>>>>> without HOST mode change, on the host side, host driver do not know
> >>>>>> what's operation the core layer want to do and can only set current bus
> >>>>>> clock to 50Mhz, without tuning parameter change, it has a chance lead to
> >>>>>> response CRC error. even lower clock frequency, but with the wrong
> >>>>>> tuning parameter setting(the setting is of hs400 tuning @200Mhz).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right, makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this patch refers to mmc_select_hs400(), make the reduce clock frequency
> >>>>>>>> after card timing change.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>  drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> >>>>>>>> index da892a5..21b811e 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card)
> >>>>>>>>         int err;
> >>>>>>>>         u8 val;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -       /* Reduce frequency to HS */
> >>>>>>>> -       max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr;
> >>>>>>>> -       mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr);
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the reason to why we change the clock frequency
> >>>>>>> *before* the call to __mmc_switch() below, is probably to try to be on
> >>>>>>> the safe side and conform to the spec.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Agree, it Must be more safe with lower clock frequency, but the
> >>>>>> precondition is to make the host side recognize current timing is not
> >>>>>> HS400 mode. it has no method to find a safe setting to ensure no
> >>>>>> response CRC error when reduce clock from 200Mhz to 50Mhz.
> >>>>>>> However, I think you have a point, as the call to __mmc_switch(),
> >>>>>>> passes the "send_status" parameter as false, no other command than the
> >>>>>>> CMD6 is sent to the card.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> yes, the send status command was sent only after __mmc_switch() done.
> >>>>>>>>         /* Switch HS400 to HS DDR */
> >>>>>>>>         val = EXT_CSD_TIMING_HS;
> >>>>>>>>         err = __mmc_switch(card, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING,
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1253,6 +1249,10 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>         mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +       /* Reduce frequency to HS */
> >>>>>>>> +       max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr;
> >>>>>>>> +       mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps it's even more correct to change the clock frequency before
> >>>>>>> the call to mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52). Otherwise you
> >>>>>>> will be using the DDR52 timing in the controller, but with a too high
> >>>>>>> frequency.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> for Our host, it has no impact to change the clock before or after
> >>>>>> change timing, as the mmc_set_timing() is only for host side, not
> >>>>>> related to MMC card side and no commands sent do card before the
> >>>>>> timing/clock change completed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alright. After a second thought, it actually looks more consistent
> >>>>> with mmc_select_hs400() to do it after, as what you propose in
> >>>>> $subject patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, let's keep it as is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>         err = mmc_switch_status(card);
> >>>>>>>>         if (err)
> >>>>>>>>                 goto out_err;
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> 1.8.1.1.dirty
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Finally, it sounds like you are trying to fix a real problem, can you
> >>>>>>> please provide some more information what is happening when the
> >>>>>>> problem occurs at your side?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I got a problem with new kernel version. with
> >>>>>> commit:57da0c042f4af52614f4bd1a148155a299ae5cd8, this commit makes
> >>>>>> re-tuning every time when access RPMB partition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Okay, could you please add this as fixes tag for the next version of the patch.
> >>>>>
Ok, sorry for late reply due to Chinese New Year.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> in fact, our host tuning result of hs400 is very stable and almost never
> >>>>>> get response CRC error with clock frequency at 200Mhz. but cannot ensure
> >>>>>> this tuning result also suitable when running at HS400 mode @50Mhz. as I
> >>>>>> mentioned before, the host side does not know the reason of reduce clock
> >>>>>> frequency to 50Mhz at HS400 mode, so what's the host side can do is only
> >>>>>> reduce the bus clock to 50Mhz, even it can just only set the tuning
> >>>>>> setting to default when clock frequency lower than 50Mhz, but both card
> >>>>>> & host side are still at HS400 mode, still cannot ensure this setting is
> >>>>>> suitable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right, thanks for clarifying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I am expecting a new version with a fixes tag and some
> >>>>> clarification of the changelog, then I am ready to apply this to give
> >>>>> it some test.
> >>>>
> >>>> The switch from HS400 mode is done for tuning at times when CRC errors are a
> >>>> possibility e.g. after a CRC error during transfer.  So if the frequency is
> >>>> not to be reduced, then some mitigation is needed for the possibility that
> >>>> the CMD6 response itself will have a CRC error.
> >>>
> >>> That's a good point!
> >>>
> >>> However, how can we know that a CMD6 command is successfully
> >>> completed, if there is CRC errors detected during the transmission? I
> >>> guess we can't!?
> >>
> >> Yes, in that case, the only option is to assume the CMD6 was successful,
> >> like in
> >>
> >>   commit ef3d232245ab7a1bf361c52449e612e4c8b7c5ab
> >>   Author: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> >>   Date:   Fri Dec 2 13:16:35 2016 +0200
> >>
> >>       mmc: mmc: Relax checking for switch errors after HS200 switch
> > 
> > Well, relaxing the check for switch errors, is to me a different
> > thing. This means we are first doing the CMD6, then allowing the
> > following status command (CMD13) to have CRC errors. Actually, even
> > the spec mention this as a case to consider. I guess it's because the
> > card internally have switched to a new speed mode timing.
> > 
> > Allowing CRC errors for the actual CMD6 sound more fragile to me. Of
> > course, we can always try and see what happens.
> > 
> > Chaotian, can you give it a go? Somehow, change the call to
> > __mmc_switch() in mmc_hs400_to_hs200(), so the CMD6 doesn't have the
> > CRC flag set.
> > 
Yes, but should we add a new argument of __mmc_switch(), like "bool
ignore_crc" ?? for now, there are too many argument of __mmc_switch().
> >>
> >> If we are going to do that, then we could stick with lowering the frequency
> >> first.
> > 
> > Let's see what Chaotian's test may show.
> > 
> >>
> >> Also I wonder if the mediatek driver could change to fixed sampling in
> >> ->set_ios() when the frequency drops for HS400 mode?
> > 
> > Well, this sounds like a generic problem so if this is a possible
> > generic solution that would be great.
> > 
> > Is this what sdhci is doing already?
> 
> Not at present, but some drivers seem to be adjusting their settings for
> HS400 based on the frequency e.g. sdhci_msm_hs400()

It's hard to find a suitable setting for all cards when running at HS400
mode @50Mhz.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists