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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191113172514.19052-1-ludovic.Barre@st.com> <CAPDyKFooSJUn6UCE6QkFmJOCovm00ehz_nAPbiNQM3AcJT_bJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c8311933-d129-4618-b81b-aa627b7b6de0@st.com> <e80f76d3-0414-4f65-c2eb-4b09aaba3840@st.com>
In-Reply-To: <e80f76d3-0414-4f65-c2eb-4b09aaba3840@st.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:20:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFpkkqb3nr1wm7hjMqJCxH7QHArxSm_oWV=M55ga9+0FKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH 1/1] mmc: mmci: add threaded irq to abort
 DPSM of non-functional state
To:     Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com>
Cc:     DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ludovic,

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:06, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote:
>
> hi Ulf
>
> just a gentleman ping about this thread.
>
> small summarize:
> This patch return an IRQ_WAKE_THREAD only when the variant is
> busy_timeout capable and a datatimeout occurs on R1B request.
>
> So the threaded irq is called only to treat this specific error.
> Normally, there is no impact on HW flow control or for legacy variants.

Yes, this should work.

>
> In your previous message, you seem to suggest using threaded irq to
> manage HW flow control (pio mode). But Like you mention below, the mmci
> legacy could timing sensitive.
>
> For the moment, I prefer to use the threaded irq just to manage this
> error. If needed, the irq threade could be extended later.
>
> What do you think about that?

Yes, that's fine!

I have another minor comment on the code, though, but posting that separately.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe