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;
Message-ID: <5a5db6c2eed2273a8903b5052312f039dd629401.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mmc: sdhci: Use the SW timer when the HW timer
 cannot meet the timeout value required by the device
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 15:08:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <79056ca7-bfe3-1b25-b6fd-de8a9388b75f@intel.com>
References: <20210917172727.26834-1-huobean@gmail.com>
         <20210917172727.26834-3-huobean@gmail.com>
         <fc14d8e1-9438-d4b0-80f4-ccf9055ab7d3@intel.com>
         <beda2d5ecc3c15e9bf9aa18383c22c2a90d31dab.camel@gmail.com>
         <93292ef4-8548-d2ba-d803-d3b40b7e6c1d@intel.com>
         <40e525300cd656dd17ffc89e1fcbc9a47ea90caf.camel@gmail.com>
         <79056ca7-bfe3-1b25-b6fd-de8a9388b75f@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 15:17 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > > >          sdhci_writeb(host, count, SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL);
> > > > }
> > > > The driver has detected that the hardware timer cannot meet the
> > > > timeout
> > > > requirements of the device, but we still use the hardware
> > > > timer,
> > > > which will
> > > > allow potential timeout issuea . Rather than allowing a
> > > > potential
> > > > problem to exist, why can’t software timing be used to avoid
> > > > this
> > > > problem?
> > > Timeouts aren't that accurate.  The maximum is assumed still to
> > > work.
> > > mmc->max_busy_timeout is used to tell the core what the maximum
> > > is.
> > mmc->max_busy_timeout is still a representation of Host HW timer
> > maximum timeout count, isn't it? 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  For SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT it would be
> 
> set to zero to indicate no maximum.

yes, this is the purpose of the patch, for the host controller without
quirk SDHCI_QUIRK2_DISABLE_HW_TIMEOUT, if the timeout count required by
device is beyond the HW timer max count, we choose SW timer to avoid the HW timer timeout IRQ.

I don't know if I get it correctly.

Bean