Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752281Ab1B1Cg2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:36:28 -0500 Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]:17916 "EHLO mailout1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752089Ab1B1Cg1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:36:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:36:21 +0900 From: Jaehoon Chung Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sdhci: always use max timeout for xfers In-reply-to: <20110225200722.GA2192@pengutronix.de> To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Philip Rakity , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Kyungmin Park , Chuanxiao Dong , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Message-id: <4D6B0A25.1060009@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) References: <20110225180248.GA15491@pengutronix.de> <9C437661-BFCC-4F73-989E-06589E0D37CA@marvell.com> <20110225182206.GC15491@pengutronix.de> <62F39533-530F-4DF4-BBC6-AF8E9AB9E751@marvell.com> <20110225200722.GA2192@pengutronix.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2011 02:36:26.0012 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BAA05C0:01CBD6F0] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1541 Lines: 46 I think that always use max timeout for xfers is not bed.. But when i have sent the RFC patch, during suspend/resume is appeared some problem. (when busy-waiting, occurred interrupt..so illegal sequence error is occurred..) Anyone found same problem when suspend/resume? So, i think that setting maximum timeout value is not good solution about every case. Regards, Jaehoon Chung Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:49:25AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote: >> v2 >> >> use define for max timeout. remove subroutine call and just >> set the register directly > > The generic description goes above the "---" line, the incremental > history of the patch usually below. > >> v1 >> >> The card/host controller may sometimes return a value that is >> too low and cause the h/w to timeout a transfer that would have >> worked. Using the maximum value avoids this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity > > What is there seems ok, but it is not enough yet. The quirks can also go > from the users. > > After that, it gets even more complicated; after this patch > 'host->timeout_clk' becomes obsolete which should probably cleaned up in > a later patch together with host->ops->get_timeout_clk. Hmmmm, that > needs careful auditing. > > Regards, > > Wolfram > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/