Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210705090050.15077-1-reniuschengl@gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFotmw-HQpZKCOD_8kThEa0_KSPnn36FNFLKRyUHYRHQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJU4x8u8JPBJ3V6MCi1XcO4Qim-COPuxOhTdUnor7JdNCUFb=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFqXsn91BvkJXMYSnc7X=RP9DXxXp2nKMmv+aMPoNdK2Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJU4x8srB7skGFVcj1SPrzEZSnVkwKiW3OPN0GQxvgtRG7GAAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFq0yHxX7wb4XGeiMiSGGiOf8RKJ5ahhFQ+_vodqnyPV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJU4x8uGxb5VD1WVV5-QeLkVzuuR09-NacL-9nuXe8Zofzb2=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFpvCFYQVEp77hiRHY6CVDej-ffF5UE=LH=HSGcqMZA02w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU4x8t+aOqq82EJMUNDpWiE3GPeyZkjFhy=AkmctcDE3mx6fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJU4x8t+aOqq82EJMUNDpWiE3GPeyZkjFhy=AkmctcDE3mx6fA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:15:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoSOk+4pmW60uGzKaYw3XOXshx+NSNqF_po=VLkK1-7Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] mmc: sdhci-pci-gli: Improve Random 4K Read
 Performance of GL9763E
To:     Renius Chen <reniuschengl@gmail.com>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ben Chuang <Ben.Chuang@genesyslogic.com.tw>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

[...]

>
> Thanks, I understand what you mean.
>
> I simply searched for the keyword "MMC_READ_MULTIPLE_BLOCK" in the
> drivers/mmc/host folder, and found that in some SD/MMC host controller
> driver codes such as alcor.c, cavium.c, ...etc, there are also
> behaviors for monitoring the request in their driver. What's the
> difference between theirs and ours?

Those checks are there to allow the HWs to be supported properly.

>
> And if the code that monitors the requstes does not belong the driver,
> where should I implement the code and how to add some functions only
> for GL9763e in that place, in your opinion?

Honestly, I am not sure what suits your use case best.

So far we have used runtime PM with a default auto suspend timeout, in
combination with dev PM Qos. In other words, run as fast as possible
to complete the requests in the queue then go back to idle and enter a
low power state. Clearly, that seems not to be sufficient for your use
case, sorry.

Kind regards
Uffe