Re: [PATCH 1/4] mmc: mmci: avoid fake busy polling

[Ulf Hansson]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:09, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/25/19 12:08 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi Ulf
> >>
> >> On 4/23/19 3:39 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:10, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> The busy status bit could occurred even if no busy response is
> >>>> expected (example cmd11). On sdmmc variant, the busy_detect_flag
> >>>> reflects inverted value of d0 state, it's sampled at the end of a
> >>>> CMD response and a second time 2 clk cycles after the CMD response.
> >>>> To avoid a fake busy, the busy status could be checked and polled
> >>>> only if the command has RSP_BUSY flag.
> >>>
> >>> I would appreciate a better explanation of what this patch really changes.
> >>>
> >>> The above is giving some background to the behavior of sdmmc variant,
> >>> but at this point that variant doesn't even have the
> >>> ->variant->busy_detect flag set.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, I will try to explain more and focus on common behavior.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> >>>> index 387ff14..4901b73 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> >>>> @@ -1220,12 +1220,13 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
> >>>>                unsigned int status)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>           void __iomem *base = host->base;
> >>>> -       bool sbc;
> >>>> +       bool sbc, busy_resp;
> >>>>
> >>>>           if (!cmd)
> >>>>                   return;
> >>>>
> >>>>           sbc = (cmd == host->mrq->sbc);
> >>>> +       busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
> >>>>
> >>>>           /*
> >>>>            * We need to be one of these interrupts to be considered worth
> >>>> @@ -1239,8 +1240,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
> >>>>           /*
> >>>>            * ST Micro variant: handle busy detection.
> >>>>            */
> >>>> -       if (host->variant->busy_detect) {
> >>>> -               bool busy_resp = !!(cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY);
> >>>> +       if (busy_resp && host->variant->busy_detect) {
> >>>>
> >>>>                   /* We are busy with a command, return */
> >>>>                   if (host->busy_status &&
> >>>> @@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@ mmci_cmd_irq(struct mmci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd,
> >>>>                    * that the special busy status bit is still set before
> >>>>                    * proceeding.
> >>>>                    */
> >>>> -               if (!host->busy_status && busy_resp &&
> >>>> +               if (!host->busy_status &&
> >>>>                       !(status & (MCI_CMDCRCFAIL|MCI_CMDTIMEOUT)) &&
> >>>>                       (readl(base + MMCISTATUS) & host->variant->busy_detect_flag)) {
> >>>
> >>> All the changes above makes perfect sense to me, but looks more like a
> >>> cleanup of the code, rather than actually changing the behavior.
> >>
> >> yes, few changing (this just avoid to enter in
> >> "if (host->variant->busy_detect)") at each time.
> >> I could move this part in cleanup patch (before this patch)
> >
> > Sounds good to me!
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>           struct mmci_host *host = dev_id;
> >>>>           u32 status;
> >>>> +       bool busy_resp;
> >>>>           int ret = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>>           spin_lock(&host->lock);
> >>>> @@ -1550,9 +1551,15 @@ static irqreturn_t mmci_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>>                   }
> >>>>
> >>>>                   /*
> >>>> -                * Don't poll for busy completion in irq context.
> >>>> +                * Don't poll for:
> >>>> +                * -busy completion in irq context.
> >>>> +                * -no busy response expected.
> >>>>                    */
> >>>> -               if (host->variant->busy_detect && host->busy_status)
> >>>> +               busy_resp = host->cmd ?
> >>>> +                       !!(host->cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) : false;
> >>>
> >>> This doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something.
> >>>
> >>> host->busy_status is being updated by mmci_cmd_irq() and only when
> >>> MMC_RSP_BUSY is set for the command in flight. In other words,
> >>> checking for MMC_RSP_BUSY here as well is redundant. No?
> >>
> >> In mmci_irq the "do while" loops until the status is totally cleared.
> >>
> >> Today (for variant with busy_detect option), the status busy_detect_flag
> >> is excluded only while busy_status period (command with MMC_RSP_BUSY and
> >> while busy line is low => "busy_status=1")
> >>
> >> On SDMMC variant I noticed that busy_detect_flag status could be enabled
> >> even if the command is not MMC_RSP_BUSY, for example sdmmc variant stay
> >> in loop while cmd11 voltage switch.
> >
> > Right, I see.
> >
> >>
> >> So I wish extend host->variant->busy_detect_flag exclusion for all
> >> commands which is not a MMC_RSP_BUSY. I suppose that other variants
> >> could have the same behavior, and else there is no impact, normally.
> >
> > I am guessing this is because the variant->busy_dpsm_flag has been set
> > in the datactrl register, which is needed for mmci_card_busy().
> >
> > That said, I am kind of wondering if we ever should need repeat the
> > while loop if 'status' contains the bit for
> > host->variant->busy_detect_flag. I mean we have already called
> > mmci_cmd_irq() to handle it.
> >
> > So, couldn't we just always do:
> >
> > if (host->variant->busy_detect_flag)
> >      status &= ~host->variant->busy_detect_flag;
> >
> > No?
>
> yes that make sense, I launched tests on sdmmc and it's ok.
> I think, that we could take on this solution.

Great!

>
> If it's ok for you, I resend a series with all modifications.

Yes, please do. I haven't reviewed the rest of the series yet, but it
may be better to do that when the next version is ready.

In either case, I should have some time to run some tests of the next
version, if you manage to send it within a couple of days or so.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe