Received: by 2002:ac0:946b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j40csp3295273imj; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbnCa2tD3U82+b9ychN+nk2T2Tgg1/23jWseyxvWSAeT2j1Sjg/2ut8aMzvKuEITYKKF6R+ X-Received: by 2002:a62:57d7:: with SMTP id i84mr1461055pfj.125.1549937149582; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:05:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549937149; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Jad6GflkttalUeIkgUH6JnfruhB2CYyUmoHtmCjBbqHYVVIgju7iySzmUvKRwc26Wa h0JytIPcJBAWs0V9KiZKgKl1KH40y8w4t5izSQL1zNtTlFwuPqZn7wpP3PzlQLkDsl9m FZDjBoeFJcl6p14qC5Cr953GPzP5KlcQF7ULJ2qPE9Z+wPqquInMyS5BWT7+uEvLjgkY B6S3DIhKQJoe240f+x4p4iVF6nOsZfAiU/67JctrLKcRY+jhznVHjwADKxsF95pW7Y66 qNEqob6SJkOfARf8+vKsU+iT25VhH3Cap21p5qLbLrdtbPYrc1VHJ+77YE9tU03O1Kgo qnxg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id; bh=fjxiJFNlfkPt+dvupTonWzSsLRTruF91pYcj73n6cHI=; b=cv7AddCBD4IDKQUpiSxjOyZeIgiIMP+MKq0++QZMSvM9IpegnNt+ZY3halAmLws1KK DdMdE7UtULXtuQu/R0TeGBW0ubG+7T45UF0qpPIFSzvQB+UOlmInx6puP4R1xcG1j6MN VqYG6NJ+VAAzGeKEe7JIRouRiJ0GA3LGZgx1yfuLPr2nUUEyf8YWLxOa5cZdJkDH2DrR nbSl3sq6xZInj+cNrcGILy0k+bSHhrZ7Hje1TRYSHe4Wdwk/hpdeLzQxICK5kV30W0Ib DZHfenemhiN75nBpamMXlICCQSOogWtsNSNV4zHgxfc0mElUiDVoYXJI2etsLUnxs2FW UOYQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a24si6003125plm.71.2019.02.11.18.05.32; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727166AbfBLCE2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:04:28 -0500 Received: from mailgw01.mediatek.com ([210.61.82.183]:13902 "EHLO mailgw01.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726699AbfBLCE2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:04:28 -0500 X-UUID: dfd274b0a9ab4b38b995669a09fdca25-20190212 X-UUID: dfd274b0a9ab4b38b995669a09fdca25-20190212 Received: from mtkcas08.mediatek.inc [(172.21.101.126)] by mailgw01.mediatek.com (envelope-from ) (mhqrelay.mediatek.com ESMTP with TLS) with ESMTP id 990468701; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:04:21 +0800 Received: from MTKCAS36.mediatek.inc (172.27.4.186) by mtkmbs03n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:04:19 +0800 Received: from [10.17.3.153] (10.17.3.153) by MTKCAS36.mediatek.inc (172.27.4.170) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:04:18 +0800 Message-ID: <1549937058.16070.5.camel@mhfsdcap03> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmc: Fix HS setting in mmc_hs400_to_hs200() From: Chaotian Jing To: Adrian Hunter CC: Ulf Hansson , Matthias Brugger , Shawn Lin , "Simon Horman" , Kyle Roeschley , Hongjie Fang , "Harish Jenny K N" , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , , srv_heupstream Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:04:18 +0800 In-Reply-To: <4c8a616f-f424-fd58-43c5-d6042665bc58@intel.com> References: <1548921212-5219-1-git-send-email-chaotian.jing@mediatek.com> <1548985091.10251.26.camel@mhfsdcap03> <0e95e1a1-843e-38ea-c4bb-e6c48432ea7c@intel.com> <4c8a616f-f424-fd58-43c5-d6042665bc58@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MTK: N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 15:42 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 5/02/19 3:06 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 14:42, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >> > >> On 4/02/19 12:54 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 1/02/19 10:10 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 02:38, Chaotian Jing wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 16:58 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 08:53, Chaotian Jing wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> mmc_hs400_to_hs200() begins with the card and host in HS400 mode. > >>>>>>>> Therefore, any commands sent to the card should use HS400 timing. > >>>>>>>> It is incorrect to reduce frequency to 50Mhz before sending the switch > >>>>>>>> command, in this case, only reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz but without > >>>>>>>> host timming change, host is still in hs400 mode but clock changed from > >>>>>>>> 200Mhz to 50Mhz, which makes the tuning result unsuitable and cause > >>>>>>>> the switch command gets response CRC error. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> According the eMMC spec there is no violation by decreasing the clock > >>>>>>> frequency like this. We can use whatever value <=200MHz. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> However, perhaps in practice this becomes an issue, due to the tuning > >>>>>>> for HS400 has been done on the "current" frequency. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As as start, I think you need to clarify this in the changelog. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, reduce clock frequency to 50Mhz is no Spec violation, but it may > >>>>>> cause __mmc_switch() gets response CRC error, decreasing the clock but > >>>>>> without HOST mode change, on the host side, host driver do not know > >>>>>> what's operation the core layer want to do and can only set current bus > >>>>>> clock to 50Mhz, without tuning parameter change, it has a chance lead to > >>>>>> response CRC error. even lower clock frequency, but with the wrong > >>>>>> tuning parameter setting(the setting is of hs400 tuning @200Mhz). > >>>>> > >>>>> Right, makes sense. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> this patch refers to mmc_select_hs400(), make the reduce clock frequency > >>>>>>>> after card timing change. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 8 ++++---- > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > >>>>>>>> index da892a5..21b811e 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c > >>>>>>>> @@ -1239,10 +1239,6 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card) > >>>>>>>> int err; > >>>>>>>> u8 val; > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - /* Reduce frequency to HS */ > >>>>>>>> - max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr; > >>>>>>>> - mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr); > >>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the reason to why we change the clock frequency > >>>>>>> *before* the call to __mmc_switch() below, is probably to try to be on > >>>>>>> the safe side and conform to the spec. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Agree, it Must be more safe with lower clock frequency, but the > >>>>>> precondition is to make the host side recognize current timing is not > >>>>>> HS400 mode. it has no method to find a safe setting to ensure no > >>>>>> response CRC error when reduce clock from 200Mhz to 50Mhz. > >>>>>>> However, I think you have a point, as the call to __mmc_switch(), > >>>>>>> passes the "send_status" parameter as false, no other command than the > >>>>>>> CMD6 is sent to the card. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> yes, the send status command was sent only after __mmc_switch() done. > >>>>>>>> /* Switch HS400 to HS DDR */ > >>>>>>>> val = EXT_CSD_TIMING_HS; > >>>>>>>> err = __mmc_switch(card, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING, > >>>>>>>> @@ -1253,6 +1249,10 @@ int mmc_hs400_to_hs200(struct mmc_card *card) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52); > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> + /* Reduce frequency to HS */ > >>>>>>>> + max_dtr = card->ext_csd.hs_max_dtr; > >>>>>>>> + mmc_set_clock(host, max_dtr); > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps it's even more correct to change the clock frequency before > >>>>>>> the call to mmc_set_timing(host, MMC_TIMING_MMC_DDR52). Otherwise you > >>>>>>> will be using the DDR52 timing in the controller, but with a too high > >>>>>>> frequency. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> for Our host, it has no impact to change the clock before or after > >>>>>> change timing, as the mmc_set_timing() is only for host side, not > >>>>>> related to MMC card side and no commands sent do card before the > >>>>>> timing/clock change completed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alright. After a second thought, it actually looks more consistent > >>>>> with mmc_select_hs400() to do it after, as what you propose in > >>>>> $subject patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, let's keep it as is. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> err = mmc_switch_status(card); > >>>>>>>> if (err) > >>>>>>>> goto out_err; > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> 1.8.1.1.dirty > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Finally, it sounds like you are trying to fix a real problem, can you > >>>>>>> please provide some more information what is happening when the > >>>>>>> problem occurs at your side? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I got a problem with new kernel version. with > >>>>>> commit:57da0c042f4af52614f4bd1a148155a299ae5cd8, this commit makes > >>>>>> re-tuning every time when access RPMB partition. > >>>>> > >>>>> Okay, could you please add this as fixes tag for the next version of the patch. > >>>>> Ok, sorry for late reply due to Chinese New Year. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> in fact, our host tuning result of hs400 is very stable and almost never > >>>>>> get response CRC error with clock frequency at 200Mhz. but cannot ensure > >>>>>> this tuning result also suitable when running at HS400 mode @50Mhz. as I > >>>>>> mentioned before, the host side does not know the reason of reduce clock > >>>>>> frequency to 50Mhz at HS400 mode, so what's the host side can do is only > >>>>>> reduce the bus clock to 50Mhz, even it can just only set the tuning > >>>>>> setting to default when clock frequency lower than 50Mhz, but both card > >>>>>> & host side are still at HS400 mode, still cannot ensure this setting is > >>>>>> suitable. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right, thanks for clarifying. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I am expecting a new version with a fixes tag and some > >>>>> clarification of the changelog, then I am ready to apply this to give > >>>>> it some test. > >>>> > >>>> The switch from HS400 mode is done for tuning at times when CRC errors are a > >>>> possibility e.g. after a CRC error during transfer. So if the frequency is > >>>> not to be reduced, then some mitigation is needed for the possibility that > >>>> the CMD6 response itself will have a CRC error. > >>> > >>> That's a good point! > >>> > >>> However, how can we know that a CMD6 command is successfully > >>> completed, if there is CRC errors detected during the transmission? I > >>> guess we can't!? > >> > >> Yes, in that case, the only option is to assume the CMD6 was successful, > >> like in > >> > >> commit ef3d232245ab7a1bf361c52449e612e4c8b7c5ab > >> Author: Adrian Hunter > >> Date: Fri Dec 2 13:16:35 2016 +0200 > >> > >> mmc: mmc: Relax checking for switch errors after HS200 switch > > > > Well, relaxing the check for switch errors, is to me a different > > thing. This means we are first doing the CMD6, then allowing the > > following status command (CMD13) to have CRC errors. Actually, even > > the spec mention this as a case to consider. I guess it's because the > > card internally have switched to a new speed mode timing. > > > > Allowing CRC errors for the actual CMD6 sound more fragile to me. Of > > course, we can always try and see what happens. > > > > Chaotian, can you give it a go? Somehow, change the call to > > __mmc_switch() in mmc_hs400_to_hs200(), so the CMD6 doesn't have the > > CRC flag set. > > Yes, but should we add a new argument of __mmc_switch(), like "bool ignore_crc" ?? for now, there are too many argument of __mmc_switch(). > >> > >> If we are going to do that, then we could stick with lowering the frequency > >> first. > > > > Let's see what Chaotian's test may show. > > > >> > >> Also I wonder if the mediatek driver could change to fixed sampling in > >> ->set_ios() when the frequency drops for HS400 mode? > > > > Well, this sounds like a generic problem so if this is a possible > > generic solution that would be great. > > > > Is this what sdhci is doing already? > > Not at present, but some drivers seem to be adjusting their settings for > HS400 based on the frequency e.g. sdhci_msm_hs400() It's hard to find a suitable setting for all cards when running at HS400 mode @50Mhz.