Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: Consider HLE errors to be data and command errors

From: Shawn Lin
Date: Thu May 26 2016 - 00:07:46 EST

å 2016/5/26 11:59, Jaehoon Chung åé:
On 05/26/2016 11:23 AM, Shawn Lin wrote:
Hi Jaehoon,

On 2016/5/19 21:07, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
On 05/19/2016 08:31 PM, Shawn Lin wrote:

On 2016/5/19 1:37, Doug Anderson wrote:

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2016-5-18 12:12, Doug Anderson wrote:


On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Shawn Lin
<shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Could you try this patch to see if you can still find HLE?

@@ -2356,12 +2356,22 @@ static void dw_mci_cmd_interrupt(struct dw_mci
*host, u32 status)
static void dw_mci_handle_cd(struct dw_mci *host)
int i;
+ int present;

for (i = 0; i < host->num_slots; i++) {
struct dw_mci_slot *slot = host->slot[i];

if (!slot)

+ present = !(mci_readl(slot->host, CDETECT) & (1 <<
+ if (present)
+ set_bit(DW_MMC_CARD_PRESENT, &slot->flags);
+ else
+ clear_bit(DW_MMC_CARD_PRESENT, &slot->flags);

No, because we don't use the builtin card detect on veyron. ;)

We use GPIO card detect because we didn't like the way JTAG and SD
interacted. Also on rk3288 the builtin card detect line had the wrong
voltage domain (you couldn't detect a card when the IO lines were
powered off). The builtin card detect line is always driven low on

Okay, I see.

I'm nearly certain that the root cause of my HLE errors is actually
related to the same problem addressed by the commit 7c5209c315ea
("mmc: core: Increase delay for voltage to stabilize from 3.3V to
1.8V"). I think that on minnie we're still on the hairy edge and
sometimes the line doesn't transition fast enough.

Things are not so simple from your details.

I was not enabling SD3.0 support, then I also found HLE sometimes.
So it seems commit 7c5209c315ea does not contibute to this phenomenon.

Just to clarify, in my case commit 7c5209c315ea didn't make the
problem worse, but made it better. Just not better enough. ;)

The scenario looks like:
remove sd-card -> mmc_sd_detect -> send status(CMD13) ->power_off ->
set_ios -> setup_bus -> disabled clk , then HLE irq storm coming

From the code of dw_mci_prepare_command:
SDMMC_CMD_PRV_DAT_WAIT will not be used for CMD13, so we don't
wait_busy here, then cmd code is loding into queue of dw_mmc but
still failing send out because it's in busy?

With my patch, things go well:
remove sd-card -> clear bit of DW_MMC_CARD_PRESENT -> send
status(CMD13) return directly -> power_off -> set_ios -> setup_bus ->
disable clk

So why should we allow inquiry of card status if we sure the card is
removed? I mean no any further cmds should be delivered.

Quite honestly just dealing with the HLE error (my patch or
equivalent) might be a sane solution for the problem you describe.

Yes, your patch looks good to me, so it should be merged firstly. :)
Then let's push it a bit further more that when HLEs are coming,
somethings must be wrong(currently I don't see a obvious clue from
the code itself although, I'm prone to think it belongs to the
software issue).

We don't know what's main cause for HLE..But i also think it's relevant to SW issue.
But we need to consider all possibilities..

dw_mmc needs to be able to work with an external card detect GPIO.
It's been part of the dw_mmc driver for a long time and is (in fact)
in use upstream at least by rk3288-veyron. Any solution that only
works for internal card detect is not enough. Just handling the HLE
error to deal with the interrupt storm and then letting Linux remove
the card (because of the card detect interrupt) seems totally OK to

Sure, some of rockchip Socs use gpio for CD because they don't
have a internal CD, such as RK3036, right?

Note: I'd be very curious if your problems get better if you disable

Not at all.

the "grf_force_jtag" bit in the GRF. If you're using the builtin card
detect and you use the boot default of "grf_force_jtag" then your pins
will be unmuxed behind your back when the card is ejected. This could
be causing the dw_mmc controller to get confused.

Right, grf_force_jtag is also not a friend of mine. :)
So I had disabled this function before I was debugging it.

And another question: should we wait busy for cmd13?

I don't think so. As I understand it CMD13 uses only the CMD line for
communication and it should be appropriate to send this when the bus
is "busy" (which means that the DATA lines are low).

Ahh... take back my question.. I was just considering a wired situation
that pins are unmuxed on the background(cmd line as well) when cmd13 is

Also: it seems odd that the HLE IRQ storm didn't come right after the
CMD 13 in your description above. Are you sure it was the CMD 13 that
caused the HLEs, or could it has been something else?

Actually no. Any cmds be issued can trigger HLEs, I think, after sd card is removed When I hacked mmc_sd_detecd to send other cmds intead
of cmd13.

From dw_mmc databook v270a(7.2.3 Clock Programming) we can see:
The DWC_mobile_storage loads each of these registers only when the
start_cmd bit and the Update_clk_regs_only bit in the CMD register are
set. When a command is successfully loaded, the DWC_mobile_storage
clears this bit, unless the DWC_mobile_storage already has another
command in the queue, at which point it gives an HLE (Hardware Locked
Error); for details on HLEs, refer to âError Handlingâ on page 233.
Software should look for the start_cmd and the Update_clk_regs_only
bits, and should also set the wait_prvdata_complete bit to ensure that
clock parameters do not change during data transfer.

Maybe the cmd is trying to load(or somethings wrong with the
controller?) when we disable the clk? That may explain my observation
that HLEs came after disabling clk.

I agreed.

To Disable clock, it sends cmd with update_clk_regs_only and wait_prvdata_complete bit.
I think it's problem..(waiting for prvdata..)

If there are ongoing some data(read/write), then before disabling clock, waiting for completing previous data.
(But card was already removed, and it couldn't do anything.)
It's difficult to analyze the HLE..So After applying first, then we can solve this problem, step by step.

I saw you send a PR for v4.7-fix to Ulf which didn't include this one.
Do you plan to add it into 4.8 materials? :)

Yes, I think good that this is prepared for next. (Will apply on this weekend.)
Do you have other opinion? :)

No, thanks. I just wanna make sure this one will be merged. :)

If you have other opinion, i will reflect yours. Thanks!

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung


Best Regards
Shawn Lin