From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
Some adaptations are required:
-Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
different.
-Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
V3:
-rebase on latest mmc next
-replace re-read by status parameter.
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 (3):
mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
"busy_detect_flag" is used to read & clear busy value of mmci status.
"busy_detect_mask" is used to manage busy irq of mmci mask.
So to read mmci status the busy_detect_flag must be take account.
if the variant does not support busy detect feature the flag is null
and there is no impact.
Not need to re-read the status register in mmci_cmd_irq, the
status parameter can be used.
Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
index 356833a..5b5cc45 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
@@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
*/
if (!host->busy_status &&
!(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
- (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
+ (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
/* Clear the busy start IRQ */
writel(host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
@@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
* to make sure that both start and end interrupts are always
* cleared one after the other.
*/
- status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0);
+ status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0) |
+ host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
if (host->variant->busy_detect)
writel(status & ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
host->base + MMCICLEAR);
--
2.7.4
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:02, Ludovic BARRE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> hi Ulf
>
> Just a "gentleman ping" about this series.
> I know you are busy, it's just to be sure you do not forget me :-)
Thanks! I started briefly to review, but got distracted again. I will
come to it, but it just seems to take more time than it should, my
apologies.
Br
Uffe
>
> Regards
> Ludo
>
> On 6/3/19 5:55 PM, Ludovic Barre wrote:
> > From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> >
> > This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
> > Some adaptations are required:
> > -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
> > different.
> > -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
> >
> > V3:
> > -rebase on latest mmc next
> > -replace re-read by status parameter.
> >
> > 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 (3):
> > mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
> > mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
> > mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
> >
> > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
hi Ulf
Just a "gentleman ping" about this series.
I know you are busy, it's just to be sure you do not forget me :-)
Regards
Ludo
On 6/3/19 5:55 PM, Ludovic Barre wrote:
> From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>
> This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
> Some adaptations are required:
> -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
> different.
> -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
>
> V3:
> -rebase on latest mmc next
> -replace re-read by status parameter.
>
> 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 (3):
> mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
> mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
> mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
>
> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
Hi Ludovic,
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:13, Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:02, Ludovic BARRE <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > hi Ulf
> >
> > Just a "gentleman ping" about this series.
> > I know you are busy, it's just to be sure you do not forget me :-)
>
> Thanks! I started briefly to review, but got distracted again. I will
> come to it, but it just seems to take more time than it should, my
> apologies.
Alright, so I planned to review this this week - but failed. I have
been overwhelmed with work lately (as usual when vacation is getting
closer).
I need to gently request to come back to this as of week 28, when I
will give this the highest prio. Again apologize for the delays!
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> Br
> Uffe
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Ludo
> >
> > On 6/3/19 5:55 PM, Ludovic Barre wrote:
> > > From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
> > > Some adaptations are required:
> > > -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
> > > different.
> > > -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
> > >
> > > V3:
> > > -rebase on latest mmc next
> > > -replace re-read by status parameter.
> > >
> > > 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 (3):
> > > mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
> > > mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
> > > mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
> > >
> > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
> > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
Hi Ulf
like scheduled, I send you a "gentleman ping" about this series.
Regards,
Ludo
________________________________________
De : Ulf Hansson <[email protected]>
Envoy? : jeudi 20 juin 2019 15:50
? : Ludovic BARRE
Cc : Rob Herring; Srinivas Kandagatla; Maxime Coquelin; Alexandre TORGUE; Linux ARM; Linux Kernel Mailing List; DTML; [email protected]; [email protected]
Objet : Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
Hi Ludovic,
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:13, Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:02, Ludovic BARRE <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > hi Ulf
> >
> > Just a "gentleman ping" about this series.
> > I know you are busy, it's just to be sure you do not forget me :-)
>
> Thanks! I started briefly to review, but got distracted again. I will
> come to it, but it just seems to take more time than it should, my
> apologies.
Alright, so I planned to review this this week - but failed. I have
been overwhelmed with work lately (as usual when vacation is getting
closer).
I need to gently request to come back to this as of week 28, when I
will give this the highest prio. Again apologize for the delays!
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> Br
> Uffe
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Ludo
> >
> > On 6/3/19 5:55 PM, Ludovic Barre wrote:
> > > From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
> > > Some adaptations are required:
> > > -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
> > > different.
> > > -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
> > >
> > > V3:
> > > -rebase on latest mmc next
> > > -replace re-read by status parameter.
> > >
> > > 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 (3):
> > > mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
> > > mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
> > > mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
> > >
> > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
> > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 09:39, Ludovic BARRE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf
>
> like scheduled, I send you a "gentleman ping" about this series.
Thanks, I am just looking at it, again.
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> Regards,
> Ludo
> ________________________________________
> De : Ulf Hansson <[email protected]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 juin 2019 15:50
> À : Ludovic BARRE
> Cc : Rob Herring; Srinivas Kandagatla; Maxime Coquelin; Alexandre TORGUE; Linux ARM; Linux Kernel Mailing List; DTML; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Objet : Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
>
> Hi Ludovic,
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:13, Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:02, Ludovic BARRE <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > hi Ulf
> > >
> > > Just a "gentleman ping" about this series.
> > > I know you are busy, it's just to be sure you do not forget me :-)
> >
> > Thanks! I started briefly to review, but got distracted again. I will
> > come to it, but it just seems to take more time than it should, my
> > apologies.
>
> Alright, so I planned to review this this week - but failed. I have
> been overwhelmed with work lately (as usual when vacation is getting
> closer).
>
> I need to gently request to come back to this as of week 28, when I
> will give this the highest prio. Again apologize for the delays!
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
> >
> > Br
> > Uffe
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Ludo
> > >
> > > On 6/3/19 5:55 PM, Ludovic Barre wrote:
> > > > From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > This patch series adds busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant.
> > > > Some adaptations are required:
> > > > -Clear busy status bit if busy_detect_flag and busy_detect_mask are
> > > > different.
> > > > -Add hardware busy timeout with MMCIDATATIMER register.
> > > >
> > > > V3:
> > > > -rebase on latest mmc next
> > > > -replace re-read by status parameter.
> > > >
> > > > 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 (3):
> > > > mmc: mmci: fix read status for busy detect
> > > > mmc: mmci: add hardware busy timeout feature
> > > > mmc: mmci: add busy detect for stm32 sdmmc variant
> > > >
> > > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 3 +++
> > > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 17:55, Ludovic Barre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>
> "busy_detect_flag" is used to read & clear busy value of mmci status.
> "busy_detect_mask" is used to manage busy irq of mmci mask.
> So to read mmci status the busy_detect_flag must be take account.
> if the variant does not support busy detect feature the flag is null
> and there is no impact.
By reading the changelog, it doesn't tell me the purpose of this
change. When going forward, please work harder on your changelogs.
Make sure to answer the questions, *why* is this change needed,
*what/how* does the change do.
>
> Not need to re-read the status register in mmci_cmd_irq, the
> status parameter can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> index 356833a..5b5cc45 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
> */
> if (!host->busy_status &&
> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
> - (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
> + (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
I suggested you to do this change through some of my earlier comments,
however I think it should be made as a stand alone change.
Anyway, when looking at the details in your series, I decided to try
to help out a bit, so I have prepared a couple of related patches for
cleaning up and clarifying the busy detection code/comments in mmci. I
have incorporated the above change, so let me post them asap.
>
> /* Clear the busy start IRQ */
> writel(host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
> @@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> * to make sure that both start and end interrupts are always
> * cleared one after the other.
> */
> - status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0);
> + status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0) |
> + host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
As I told earlier in the review, this looks wrong to me.
It means that you will add the bit for the ->busy_detect_flag to the
status field we have just read from the MMCISTATUS register. That
means the busy status may be set when it shouldn't.
> if (host->variant->busy_detect)
> writel(status & ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
> host->base + MMCICLEAR);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
By looking at the other changes in the series, I assume @subject patch
is intended to prepare for the other changes on top. But it's not
really clear.
Anyway, in that regards, the below is my observations of what seems to
be important part, when supporting busy detection for the stm32 sdmmc
variant (except the timeout things in patch2, which I intend to
comment separately on).
I figured, these are the involved register bits/masks:
MMCISTATUS:
MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 BIT(20)
MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END BIT(21)
MMCIMASK0:
MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK BIT(21)
For the legacy ST variant, there is only one register bit in
MMCISTATUS that is used for indicating busy (MCI_ST_CARDBUSY BIT(24)).
There is no dedicated busy-end bit for the busy-end IRQ, which I
believe is the reason to why the current code also is bit messy.
It seems like the stm32 sdmmc variant have a separate status bit for
the busy-end IRQ, correct?
If I understand correctly by looking at patch3, you don't use the
dedicated busy-end status bit (MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END), right? Then why
not?
Thoughts?
Kind regards
Uffe
hi Ulf
Thanks to your "Clarify comments ..." commit, like is closes
I resumed upstream of this series.
On 7/15/19 6:31 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 17:55, Ludovic Barre <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>>
>> "busy_detect_flag" is used to read & clear busy value of mmci status.
>> "busy_detect_mask" is used to manage busy irq of mmci mask.
>> So to read mmci status the busy_detect_flag must be take account.
>> if the variant does not support busy detect feature the flag is null
>> and there is no impact.
>
> By reading the changelog, it doesn't tell me the purpose of this
> change. When going forward, please work harder on your changelogs.
>
> Make sure to answer the questions, *why* is this change needed,
> *what/how* does the change do.
Ok, I will explain the differences with the legacy and the needs of
sdmmc variant about busy detection.
>
>>
>> Not need to re-read the status register in mmci_cmd_irq, the
>> status parameter can be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> index 356833a..5b5cc45 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
>> */
>> if (!host->busy_status &&
>> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
>> - (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>> + (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>
> I suggested you to do this change through some of my earlier comments,
> however I think it should be made as a stand alone change.
>
> Anyway, when looking at the details in your series, I decided to try
> to help out a bit, so I have prepared a couple of related patches for
> cleaning up and clarifying the busy detection code/comments in mmci. I
> have incorporated the above change, so let me post them asap.
>
>>
>> /* Clear the busy start IRQ */
>> writel(host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
>> @@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> * to make sure that both start and end interrupts are always
>> * cleared one after the other.
>> */
>> - status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0);
>> + status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0) |
>> + host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
>
> As I told earlier in the review, this looks wrong to me.
>
> It means that you will add the bit for the ->busy_detect_flag to the
> status field we have just read from the MMCISTATUS register. That
> means the busy status may be set when it shouldn't.
>
>> if (host->variant->busy_detect)
>> writel(status & ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
>> host->base + MMCICLEAR);
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>
> By looking at the other changes in the series, I assume @subject patch
> is intended to prepare for the other changes on top. But it's not
> really clear.
>
> Anyway, in that regards, the below is my observations of what seems to
> be important part, when supporting busy detection for the stm32 sdmmc
> variant (except the timeout things in patch2, which I intend to
> comment separately on).
>
> I figured, these are the involved register bits/masks:
>
> MMCISTATUS:
> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 BIT(20)
> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END BIT(21)
>
> MMCIMASK0:
> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK BIT(21)
it's exact:
MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 BIT(20): This is a hardware status flag only (inverted
value of d0 line), it does not generate an interrupt, and so no mask
bit.
MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK BIT(21): This indicates only end of busy
following a CMD response. On busy to Not busy changes, an interrupt
is generated (if unmask) and BUSYD0END status flag is set.
status flag is cleared by writing corresponding interrupt clear bit in
MMCICLEAR.
>
> For the legacy ST variant, there is only one register bit in
> MMCISTATUS that is used for indicating busy (MCI_ST_CARDBUSY BIT(24)).
> There is no dedicated busy-end bit for the busy-end IRQ, which I
> believe is the reason to why the current code also is bit messy.
yes
>
> It seems like the stm32 sdmmc variant have a separate status bit for
> the busy-end IRQ, correct?
yes
>
> If I understand correctly by looking at patch3, you don't use the
> dedicated busy-end status bit (MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END), right? Then why
> not?
like your are clarify in previous series, the busy detection is done
in 3 steps.
if I use:
.busy_detect_flag = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
.busy_detect_mask = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
the sdmmc request will be not correctly completed, because the third
step can't be happen.
chronologies:
step1: when busyd0end change to 1
=> busyd0end interrupt is unmasked
=> busy_status = cmd_sent | respend
=> return to mmci_irq
step2: busyd0end is yet to 1
=> clear the busyd0end interrupt
=> the hardware clear busyd0end status flag on interrupt clear
=> return to mmci_irq
like MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END interrupt is generated only on change
busy to not busy, when the interrupt is cleared (status is 0)
the step 3 can't happen (no irq pending to re-enter in mmci_cmd_irq).
sdmmc can't complete the request.
If I use:
.busy_detect_flag = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0,
.busy_detect_mask = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
Like there is no MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 irq mask, the status read in mmci_irq
"status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0)" can't take account the
busy_detect_flag (for sdmmc). So the step 2 can't be passed.
However we could share re-read between step 1 and step 2.
proposal:
+
+ u32 busy_val = readl(base + MMCISTATUS) &
+ host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
+
if (!host->busy_status &&
- !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
- (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
+ !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) && busy_val) {
writel(readl(base + MMCIMASK0) |
host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
@@ -1262,8 +1265,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct
mmc_command *cmd,
* both the start and the end interrupts needs to be cleared,
* one after the other. So, clear the busy start IRQ here.
*/
- if (host->busy_status &&
- (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
+ if (host->busy_status && busy_val) {
what do you think about it ?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
Regards
Ludo
hi Ulf
On 7/26/19 11:41 AM, Ludovic BARRE wrote:
> hi Ulf
>
> Thanks to your "Clarify comments ..." commit, like is closes
> I resumed upstream of this series.
>
> On 7/15/19 6:31 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 17:55, Ludovic Barre <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> "busy_detect_flag" is used to read & clear busy value of mmci status.
>>> "busy_detect_mask" is used to manage busy irq of mmci mask.
>>> So to read mmci status the busy_detect_flag must be take account.
>>> if the variant does not support busy detect feature the flag is null
>>> and there is no impact.
>>
>> By reading the changelog, it doesn't tell me the purpose of this
>> change. When going forward, please work harder on your changelogs.
>>
>> Make sure to answer the questions, *why* is this change needed,
>> *what/how* does the change do.
>
> Ok, I will explain the differences with the legacy and the needs of
> sdmmc variant about busy detection.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Not need to re-read the status register in mmci_cmd_irq, the
>>> status parameter can be used.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>> index 356833a..5b5cc45 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
>>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct
>>> mmc_command *cmd,
>>> */
>>> if (!host->busy_status &&
>>> !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
>>> - (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) &
>>> host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>>> + (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
>>
>> I suggested you to do this change through some of my earlier comments,
>> however I think it should be made as a stand alone change.
>>
>> Anyway, when looking at the details in your series, I decided to try
>> to help out a bit, so I have prepared a couple of related patches for
>> cleaning up and clarifying the busy detection code/comments in mmci. I
>> have incorporated the above change, so let me post them asap.
>>
>>>
>>> /* Clear the busy start IRQ */
>>> writel(host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
>>> @@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> * to make sure that both start and end interrupts
>>> are always
>>> * cleared one after the other.
>>> */
>>> - status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0);
>>> + status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0) |
>>> + host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
>>
>> As I told earlier in the review, this looks wrong to me.
>>
>> It means that you will add the bit for the ->busy_detect_flag to the
>> status field we have just read from the MMCISTATUS register. That
>> means the busy status may be set when it shouldn't.
>>
>>> if (host->variant->busy_detect)
>>> writel(status &
>>> ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
>>> host->base + MMCICLEAR);
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>>
>>
>> By looking at the other changes in the series, I assume @subject patch
>> is intended to prepare for the other changes on top. But it's not
>> really clear.
>>
>> Anyway, in that regards, the below is my observations of what seems to
>> be important part, when supporting busy detection for the stm32 sdmmc
>> variant (except the timeout things in patch2, which I intend to
>> comment separately on).
>>
>> I figured, these are the involved register bits/masks:
>>
>> MMCISTATUS:
>> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 BIT(20)
>> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END BIT(21)
>>
>> MMCIMASK0:
>> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK BIT(21)
>
> it's exact:
> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 BIT(20): This is a hardware status flag only (inverted
> value of d0 line), it does not generate an interrupt, and so no mask
> bit.
>
> MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK BIT(21): This indicates only end of busy
> following a CMD response. On busy to Not busy changes, an interrupt
> is generated (if unmask) and BUSYD0END status flag is set.
> status flag is cleared by writing corresponding interrupt clear bit in
> MMCICLEAR.
>
>>
>> For the legacy ST variant, there is only one register bit in
>> MMCISTATUS that is used for indicating busy (MCI_ST_CARDBUSY BIT(24)).
>> There is no dedicated busy-end bit for the busy-end IRQ, which I
>> believe is the reason to why the current code also is bit messy.
>
> yes
>
>>
>> It seems like the stm32 sdmmc variant have a separate status bit for
>> the busy-end IRQ, correct?
>
> yes
>
>>
>> If I understand correctly by looking at patch3, you don't use the
>> dedicated busy-end status bit (MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END), right? Then why
>> not?
>
> like your are clarify in previous series, the busy detection is done
> in 3 steps.
>
> if I use:
> .busy_detect_flag = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
> .busy_detect_mask = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
>
> the sdmmc request will be not correctly completed, because the third
> step can't be happen.
>
> chronologies:
> step1: when busyd0end change to 1
> => busyd0end interrupt is unmasked
> => busy_status = cmd_sent | respend
> => return to mmci_irq
> step2: busyd0end is yet to 1
> => clear the busyd0end interrupt
> => the hardware clear busyd0end status flag on interrupt clear
> => return to mmci_irq
>
> like MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END interrupt is generated only on change
> busy to not busy, when the interrupt is cleared (status is 0)
> the step 3 can't happen (no irq pending to re-enter in mmci_cmd_irq).
> sdmmc can't complete the request.
>
> If I use:
> .busy_detect_flag = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0,
> .busy_detect_mask = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
>
> Like there is no MCI_STM32_BUSYD0 irq mask, the status read in mmci_irq
> "status &= readl(host->base + MMCIMASK0)" can't take account the
> busy_detect_flag (for sdmmc). So the step 2 can't be passed.
> However we could share re-read between step 1 and step 2.
>
> proposal:
>
> +
> + u32 busy_val = readl(base + MMCISTATUS) &
> + host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
> +
> if (!host->busy_status &&
> - !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
> - (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) &
> host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
> + !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) && busy_val) {
>
> writel(readl(base + MMCIMASK0) |
> host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
> @@ -1262,8 +1265,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct
> mmc_command *cmd,
> * both the start and the end interrupts needs to be cleared,
> * one after the other. So, clear the busy start IRQ here.
> */
> - if (host->busy_status &&
> - (status & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
> + if (host->busy_status && busy_val) {
>
>
> what do you think about it ?
>
I give up this proposal for a new version based on mmci_host_ops
callback to done the busy completion.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Uffe
>>
>
> Regards
> Ludo
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-stm32 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://st-md-mailman.stormreply.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-stm32