[PATCH 0/3] mmc: Wait for card_busy before starting sdio requests

[Jaehoon Chung]

On 09/25/2015 06:41 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25-09-15 11:37, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> Hi, Hans.
>>
>> On 09/25/2015 04:53 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 24-09-15 18:04, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23-09-15 23:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 September 2015 at 17:30, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a non RFC version of my patch-set to wait for card_busy before
>>>>>>> starting sdio requests. It is the same as the RFC version of the set,
>>>>>>> but this time it has been tested no hardware which actually needs this
>>>>>>> and I can confirm now that this fixes wifi on that hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great! Thanks, applied for next!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, thanks, I guess it is too late for this to go as a fix into
>>>>> 4.3-rcX (no worries if it is) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch-set should also allow removing this dw_mmc specific fix:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c?id=0bdbd0e88cf6b603a2196418672715b0890fb040
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As this patch-set fixes this problem in a generic manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to send a patch to remove the above hack/fix?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not have any hardware to test this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've added Doug the original author of that patch to the Cc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dough, can you test if with the patch set from this mail thread
>>>>> (merged into mmc/next) this patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c?id=0bdbd0e88cf6b603a2196418672715b0890fb040
>>>>>
>>>>> Is still necessary ? Since this patch-set fixes the same issue
>>>>> in the mmc core I believe that this commit can be reverted now.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to find some time in the next few days to test, but I'm not
>>>> terribly hopeful we can just revert the patch because:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Only one of the two callers of dw_mci_wait_while_busy() is handled
>>>> by your patch.  mci_send_cmd() is used internally in dw_mmc to throw
>>>> something in the CMD register without going through the normal MMC
>>>> path.  This is used exclusively to update the clock registers in
>>>> dw_mmc.  I'm pretty sure this needs the wait, too.  It's always seemed
>>>> weird / awkward to me that you need to use the CMD register to update
>>>> clock settings in dw_mmc, but c'est la vie.
>>>
>>> I would not expect the card to signal busy when trying to change clocks
>>> though, so I do not think this will really be a problem.
>>
>> No. It shouldn't be occurred any problem.
>> But according to designware TRM, it needs to check whether card is busy or not, before updating clock.
>> I think even if problem will not occur, it doesn't mean this code is useless.
>>
>>>
>>>> 2. If I remember correctly, we ran into other instances where non-SDIO
>>>> cards needed the busy check.  It wasn't terribly common, but I think I
>>>> ran into this when stress testing, but only on a few cards.
>>>
>>> Hmm, that would be a problem yes.
>>>
>>>> The patch referenced here only seems to check for SDIO commands.  As I
>>>> understand it, to be correct, it should check for all data commands
>>>> (other than stop or voltage change commands).
>>>
>>> But that is not what the patch does, it actually waits for all commands,
>>> including non data commands. An earlier attempt of mine to fix the sdio
>>> wifi issues with the sunxi driver copied your approach, and I actually
>>> got reports of regressions with using normal micro-sd memory cards
>>> from several people testing that patch.
>>
>> I can't see any problem reported at mailing list.
>> Could you share more information what regressions issue?
> 
> IIRC people where hitting the timeout in the code to wait for the card-busy.
> 
> Now that I think about this, this may have been caused by waiting
> for card-busy while sending a stop.

I understood what problem you said.
Well, but i don't accept your opinion yet.
Is that case reproduced with dwmmc controller? otherwise...sunxi driver?
(It seems that you mentioned the case of sunxi driver.)

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Jaehoon Chung
>>
>>>
>>> And if you're right that we should wait for all data commands, then
>>> I wonder if this is a designware thing (I believe the allwinner
>>> mmc controller is designware derived) or a generic mmc / sdio thing ?
>>>
>>>> The Designware Databook
>>>> makes no reference to only needing the wait for SDIO commands.
>>>
>>> Yet your commit message references problems with sdio wifi cards, and
>>> on sunxi we've only been seeing this problem with sdio wifi cards / sdio
>>> commands.
>>>
>>>> ...of course, it's always possible that some of the things I saw above
>>>> will no longer happen with all the other fixes we've done in the
>>>> meantime (turning on voltages at the right time, adding the right
>>>> delays, etc).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that I've hardly looked at sdhci at all, but on SDHCI is this
>>>> handled by the "SDHCI_DATA_INHIBIT" bits?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hans
>>> -- 
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>