[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjoY+Z/iuIoNDhch@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:44:09 +0200
From: "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christian Löhle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
"david-b@...bell.net" <david-b@...bell.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: block: Check for errors after write on SPI
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:21:34PM +0000, Christian Löhle wrote:
> Introduce a SEND_STATUS check for writes through SPI to not mark
> an unsuccessful write as successful.
>
> Since SPI SD/MMC does not have states, after a write, the card will
> just hold the line LOW until it is ready again. The driver marks the
> write therefore as completed as soon as it reads something other than
> all zeroes.
> The driver does not distinguish from a card no longer signalling busy
> and it being disconnected (and the line being pulled-up by the host).
> This lead to writes being marked as successful when disconnecting
> a busy card.
> Now the card is ensured to be still connected by an additional CMD13,
> just like non-SPI is ensured to go back to TRAN state.
>
> While at it and since we already poll for the post-write status anyway,
> we might as well check for SPIs error bits (any of them).
>
> The disconnecting card problem is reproducable for me after continuous
> write activity and randomly disconnecting, around every 20-50 tries
> on SPI DS for some card.
...
> + if (mmc_host_is_spi(card->host)) {
> + u32 status = 0;
> + err = __mmc_send_status(card, &status, 0);
> + /* All R1 and R2 bits of SPI are errors in our case */
> + if (status)
> + err = err ? err : -EIO;
I would use either this:
if (err || status) {
mqrq->brq.data.bytes_xfered = 0;
if (err)
return err;
return -EIO;
}
return 0;
or at least this:
err = err ?: -EIO;
or even this:
if (!err && status)
err = -EIO;
(Personally I would choose the first option)
> + if (err)
> + mqrq->brq.data.bytes_xfered = 0;
> + return err;
> + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists