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: <987cb93359dc95ce9fb387b755fadb0ab6eb98f9.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:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:39:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <37497369a4cf5f729e7b3e31727a7d64be5482db.camel@gmail.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>
         <5a5db6c2eed2273a8903b5052312f039dd629401.camel@gmail.com>
         <5072935e-d855-7029-1ac0-0883978f66e5@intel.com>
         <37497369a4cf5f729e7b3e31727a7d64be5482db.camel@gmail.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 23:33 +0200, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 16:26 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 24/09/21 4:08 pm, Bean Huo wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Why can't drivers that want the behaviour just set the quirk?
> > 
> > Drivers that do not work with the quirk, do not have to set it.
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> We cannot add this quirk to every host driver. This is the difference
> on the device side. In addition, I don't know what the maximum
> hardware
> timer budget for each host is. Even if you use the same SOC, the
> maximum time budget on different platforms may be different.
> 
> Assume that the maximum timeout time supported by the hardware timer
> is
> 100 milliseconds, but the maximum data transmission time required by
> the device is 150 milliseconds. In most cases, data transfer will not
> take so long. 150 is the maximum time under extreme conditions. This
> means that the device just needs to complete a data transfer within
> > 100ms and keep the data line busy. If we still use the HW timer, it
> will trigger a DATA LINE timeout interrupt.
> 
> This patch does not affect scenarios where the hardware timer meets
> the
> max data transmission time requirements of the device. It will still
> use the hardware timer. Only when the device changes, will it switch
> to
> using the SW timer.
> 
> Bean
> 

Hi Adrian,

Would you please review this patch again and is it possible to be
accepted?

Bean