[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74b91eb4-e5a3-38b2-f732-29cdd058eb6a@st.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:06:45 +0200
From: Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/5] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
On 4/30/19 1:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 09:46, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@...com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>
>> This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
>> Some adaptations are required:
>> -Avoid to check and poll busy status when is not expected.
>> -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
>> different.
>> -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
>>
>> V2:
>> -mmci_cmd_irq cleanup in separate patch.
>> -simplify the busy_detect_flag exclude
>> -replace sdmmc specific comment in
>> "mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq"
>> to focus on common behavior
>>
>> Ludovic Barre (5):
>> mmc: mmci: cleanup mmci_cmd_irq for busy detect feature
>> mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling in mmci_irq
>> mmc: mmci: fix clear of busy detect status
>> mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
>> mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
>>
>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>
> Ludovic, just wanted to let you know that I am reviewing and testing
> this series.
>
> However, while running some tests on Ux500 for validating the busy
> detection code, even without your series applied, I encounter some odd
> behaviors. I am looking into the problem to understand better and will
> let you know as soon as I have some more data to share.
Oops, don't hesitate to share your status, if I could help.
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists