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

[Jaehoon Chung]

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?

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
>