Re: [PATCH V2] sdhci: always use max timeout for xfers
From: Jaehoon Chung
Date: Sun Feb 27 2011 - 21:36:31 EST
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.
Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:49:25AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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 <prakity@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/