Received: by 2002:ac0:946b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j40csp78414imj; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:04:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYwPIqN/rel8xm1xU8hzae8+jJJrXOeesOYI5+0k2dOH7VmOZFS2IKQUS43yoekgfHyFHSl X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7043:: with SMTP id h3mr402990plt.213.1550063068866; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:04:28 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550063068; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=WxHRkAORGEU1/XZ50C1RXHbUQtbgdkzw/WBLn03JfzBwWZQu7HH083jLdZAvw9V+Ao FapeNeCx/c4wpl43Edx9xbT6T9TQihMNglWsk5h/S52V4JGsAK/8WM14RG29Bmm6M2Iq 8fc7DqVc0DE0jPpNxiBRCuW/nEGYzN3wk1qJZ1JfUFSCGb6id0DNS55MMNUul4CFUgYe lbc1WPgGsy+5UJ9iIkgeRdDwNm1AuhU89giNwFd3r6EGaIZAPsTfVqtxVnXompbZEp7p d0aFMtIsjj4OvLYg4eHIPQsOxtTShjIWNzB3Cz6edL0NdWYzVwA6Yej1pvoX7cT7EA3r 6rxA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=Q2qmN9+UbJlbLG4aVdSAIXv860x3JbVvMaV7D4q3eV8=; b=ZbvjN1G82a5BP49L0AFzXchkHge9evHTYrDofU32M/HLzHLfpreM8Kf7FNFz6mE/sf XjAlLuS555htUKzGNO4f3yMxX3GiOXIfohJ47CPlMgghrAKcW628rUoUVZMgrPWJm/dC y9H8ylu32oK93UI/a+1MUDlHyGxSGHRE3Fo/K652D/1Ju9MHI9ARwvP7w6oVgM/fE3CT UVpfajZi1/5+6qq/OkzP/pHTFtygfapN1jR5/UV6Y6TDzYs+yoi2FSl7CBWWiOrAzNw1 w6aH1kpN9Bcqokzry9XSEQcDpgDSBSwHVS4aOOPdmERk473EpUw5OssOIWRo0K0bIIE/ rmig== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=Bwb46eWT; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r10si7406129pls.33.2019.02.13.05.04.08; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:04:28 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=Bwb46eWT; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2403813AbfBMIdj (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:33:39 -0500 Received: from mail-ua1-f65.google.com ([209.85.222.65]:37959 "EHLO mail-ua1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390701AbfBMIdj (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:33:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ua1-f65.google.com with SMTP id p9so502651uaa.5 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:33:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q2qmN9+UbJlbLG4aVdSAIXv860x3JbVvMaV7D4q3eV8=; b=Bwb46eWT4sCTwE95FeB2O+N8G8MGjcCy2kuk91qbmXUirstMXR2f5a+0BqK0WhY3iO TRF4wEO977Lr40Z+1CCsKgv37xg0YfIJsjvthUmz3AGs6ryFFIXS1PEe0UBmmi6lsYqm XIffRCuTDL19EuWx7ST5CRTShdfQiszA1f6JBsjwsHUSQu9Zqi4iMJsvPJiGbX1wNwak zCOQk3a1Tp2nqTBES4r5RgBl48SgXdoSCHyDhduysERBB7wfxNmaIx8ImatW3FhwPgcc qJ4254XfIS2P0Wm+djo/lo34q/fm7rgTSlPEQZs7PxLCQ/lieI1KTMdHd7kUTjqtUkxC bkJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q2qmN9+UbJlbLG4aVdSAIXv860x3JbVvMaV7D4q3eV8=; b=YBpZDYT2yNnqXdNg8WTq1AP9qk38nQe5Fj7paiL7TY/hyGqB+0oHyPHVPvRrWntB97 4GS9jPoN5xe2UL5eRcayDZOnCS4a43NIYIbIegdHqEMCUVCA5p2N7stJe0jYpWJTyfHo 26Qn53GlgTcyOT20EiTld2TFK2L6ytJEk2EGek5MoV5FHhEMmhINb9BOSgTByhYFBgVp 542mHfigKP6/7jjl7S5qljrMQQAfBCAxVV4aKw0KEwZr5T5t9zmP8wPjAuspOH7DRTQK wwzWIIl2ZizoC2OJkNOAvOyU5Pkq7YDY5dtJMSRjR/JptwDywxDwut3jsVkdMIHjs1rX AK4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYHmZ+7R3ceDce0vmbBZsX+3en7uuebaXNogkMlgA0mKOJp/k8y 6Xcz20KFBBo+5M7KBUQ+SGVUwWkVMZtIaTkIRMBk590JQUc= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:31d5:: with SMTP id e21mr3289244uan.107.1550046816991; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <1549937058.16070.5.camel@mhfsdcap03> <566c0c11-be9c-73a3-d7ff-34aed3ad7db0@intel.com> <1550019275.16070.6.camel@mhfsdcap03> <1550027594.16070.15.camel@mhfsdcap03> <1550044540.16070.23.camel@mhfsdcap03> In-Reply-To: <1550044540.16070.23.camel@mhfsdcap03> From: Ulf Hansson Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:33:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: mmc: Fix HS setting in mmc_hs400_to_hs200() To: Chaotian Jing Cc: Adrian Hunter , 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 , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, srv_heupstream Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 08:55, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 08:24 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 04:13, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 08:54 +0800, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 10:04 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > > > > On 12/02/19 4:04 AM, Chaotian Jing wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > @Adrian, @Ulf, another question: if remove the MMC_RSP_CRC flag, it will > > > have big impact to all host driver, as the "mmc_resp_type()" can not get > > > MMC_RESP_R1B return value, so many host drivers use mmc_resp_type() to > > > get resp type. if We make CMD6 does not have CRC flag set, then We must > > > modify the using of "mmc_resp_type()" to "mmc_resp_type() | MMC_RSP_CRC" > > > in all host drives. the same issue occurs at other place which remove > > > MMC_RSP_CRC(eg. mmc_cqe_recovery()). > > > > The idea is actually to try to change this for all host drivers, of > > course it's only for this particular CMD6 in question, so not for all > > CMD6. > > > Well, I mean, all commands(R1/R1B/R5/R6/R7) with MMC_RSP_CRC flag NOT > set will cause host driver cannot work properly, host driver cannot get > correct response type by mmc_resp_type() to padding its register. > if the MMC core layer supports "cmd.flags &= ~MMC_RSP_CRC", then must > modify all host driver to support it. Ah, I get your point, you are right. We should really convert all host drivers to move away from checking MMC_RSP_R* flags, but instead check the separate bits instead. Some already do that, but far from all. > > So, in this case, the easy way to check return value of this > __mmc_switch() may like blow: > if (err && err != -EILSEQ) Yes, makes sense. That is the similar as what we do in mmc_poll_for_busy() when polling with CMD13 in some cases. Let's try and see how this works. > > However, before we consider doing such a change, we need to know if it > > solves the problem for you? If it doesn't, then we can drop the idea. > > > > As a perhaps better alternative, Adrian also suggested, if possible, > > to let the mediatek driver change to "fixed sampling mode" via the > > ->set_ios() host ops, at the point when the clk rate drops to > > HS-frequency, but still running with MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 timings. Of > > course this means "fixed sampling" needs to be supported by the > > mediatek IP. > > > > If neither of this works for you, we need to consider something else. > > > > [...] > > > > Kind regards > > Uffe > >