[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFpPOA7VD0Qw3dnnSdF4i5pNK6buCNCV2izW6xr5Mr9ybA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:32:41 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@...dia.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
Kishon <kishon@...com>
Subject: Re: LKFT: arm x15: mmc1: cache flush error -110
[...]
>
> > Actually we always use R1B with CMD6 as per spec.
>
> I fully agree that R1B is preferable, but it's not against the spec to
> send CMD13 to poll for busy.
>
> Moreover, we need to cope with the scenario when the host has
> specified a maximum timeout that isn't sufficiently long enough for
> the requested operation. Do you have another proposal for how to
> manage this, but disabling MMC_RSP_BUSY?
>
> Let's assume you driver would get a R1B for the CMD6 (we force it),
> then what timeout would the driver be using if we would set
> cmd.busy_timeout to 30ms?
/s/30ms/30s
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists