Re: [RFC PATCH 09/12] mmc: sdhci: Use software timer when timeout greater than hardware capablility
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I
Date: Thu Jan 04 2018 - 07:59:58 EST
Hi Adrian,
On Wednesday 20 December 2017 07:41 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 14/12/17 15:09, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Errata i834 in AM572x Sitara Processors Silicon Revision 2.0, 1.1
>> (SPRZ429K July 2014âRevised March 2017 [1]) mentions
>> Under high speed HS200 and SDR104 modes, the functional clock for MMC
>> modules will reach up to 192 MHz. At this frequency, the maximum obtainable
>> timeout (DTO = 0xE) through MMC host controller is (1/192MHz)*2^27 = 700ms.
>> Commands taking longer than 700ms may be affected by this small window
>> frame. Workaround for this errata is use a software timer instead of
>> hardware timer to provide the delay requested by the upper layer.
>>
>> While this errata is specific to AM572x, it is applicable to all sdhci
>> based controllers when a particular request require timeout greater
>> than hardware capability.
>
> It doesn't work for our controllers. Even if the data timeout interrupt is
> disabled, it seems like the timeout still "happens" in some fashion - after
> which the host controller starts misbehaving.
even if the data timeout doesn't get disabled, count = 0xE is still present. So
ideally this shouldn't break any existing platforms no?
>
> So you will need to add a quirk.
>
>>
>> Re-use the software timer already implemented in sdhci to program the
>> correct timeout value and also disable the hardware timeout when
>> the required timeout is greater than hardware capabiltiy in order to
>> avoid spurious timeout interrupts.
>>
>> This patch is based on the earlier patch implemented for omap_hsmmc [2]
>>
>> [1] -> http://www.ti.com/lit/er/sprz429k/sprz429k.pdf
>> [2] -> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9791449/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 11 +++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> index e9290a3439d5..d0655e1d2cc7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> @@ -673,6 +673,27 @@ static void sdhci_adma_table_post(struct sdhci_host *host,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>> + struct mmc_command *cmd,
>> + unsigned int target_timeout)
>> +{
>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>> + struct mmc_ios *ios = &mmc->ios;
>> + struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
>> + unsigned long long transfer_time;
>> +
>> + if (data) {
>> + transfer_time = MMC_BLOCK_TRANSFER_TIME_MS(data->blksz,
>> + ios->bus_width,
>> + ios->clock);
>
> If it has a value, actual_clock is better than ios->clock.
okay.
>
>> + /* calculate timeout for the entire data */
>> + host->data_timeout = (data->blocks * (target_timeout +
>> + transfer_time));
>> + } else if (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_BUSY) {
>> + host->data_timeout = cmd->busy_timeout * MSEC_PER_SEC;
>
> Doesn't need MSEC_PER_SEC multiplier.
right.
>
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>> {
>> u8 count;
>> @@ -732,8 +753,12 @@ static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>> }
>>
>> if (count >= 0xF) {
>> - DBG("Too large timeout 0x%x requested for CMD%d!\n",
>> - count, cmd->opcode);
>> + DBG("Too large timeout.. using SW timeout for CMD%d!\n",
>> + cmd->opcode);
>> + sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(host, cmd, target_timeout);
>> + host->ier &= ~SDHCI_INT_DATA_TIMEOUT;
>> + sdhci_writel(host, host->ier, SDHCI_INT_ENABLE);
>> + sdhci_writel(host, host->ier, SDHCI_SIGNAL_ENABLE);
>> count = 0xE;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1198,6 +1223,14 @@ static void sdhci_finish_command(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> {
>> struct mmc_command *cmd = host->cmd;
>>
>> + if (host->data_timeout) {
>> + unsigned long timeout;
>> +
>> + timeout = jiffies +
>> + msecs_to_jiffies(host->data_timeout);
>> + sdhci_mod_timer(host, host->cmd->mrq, timeout);
>
> cmd could be the sbc or a stop cmd or a command during transfer, so this
> needs more logic.
host->data_timeout gets set only for data commands or commands with busy
timeout. But I guess for commands during data transfer, host->data_timeout
might still be set?
Checking sdhci_data_line_cmd(mrq->cmd) in addition to host->data_timeout should
take care of all cases right?
>
>> + }
>> +
>> host->cmd = NULL;
>>
>> if (cmd->flags & MMC_RSP_PRESENT) {
>> @@ -2341,6 +2374,10 @@ static bool sdhci_request_done(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> + host->data_timeout = 0;
>> + host->ier |= SDHCI_INT_DATA_TIMEOUT;
>> + sdhci_writel(host, host->ier, SDHCI_INT_ENABLE);
>> + sdhci_writel(host, host->ier, SDHCI_SIGNAL_ENABLE);
>
> sdhci can have 2 requests in progress to allow for commands to be sent while
> a data transfer is in progress, so this is not necessarily the data transfer
> request that is done. Also we want to avoid unnecessary register writes.
>
okay.. got it.
>> sdhci_del_timer(host, mrq);
>>
>> /*
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>> index 54bc444c317f..e6e0278bea1a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
>> @@ -332,6 +332,15 @@ struct sdhci_adma2_64_desc {
>> /* Allow for a a command request and a data request at the same time */
>> #define SDHCI_MAX_MRQS 2
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Time taken for transferring one block. It is multiplied by a constant
>> + * factor '2' to account for any errors
>> + */
>> +#define MMC_BLOCK_TRANSFER_TIME_MS(blksz, bus_width, freq) \
>> + ((unsigned long long) \
>> + (2 * (((blksz) * MSEC_PER_SEC * \
>> + (8 / (bus_width))) / (freq))))
>
> I don't think the macro helps make the code more readable. Might just as
> well write a nice function to calculate the entire data request timeout.
okay.
>
>> +
>> enum sdhci_cookie {
>> COOKIE_UNMAPPED,
>> COOKIE_PRE_MAPPED, /* mapped by sdhci_pre_req() */
>> @@ -546,6 +555,8 @@ struct sdhci_host {
>> /* Host SDMA buffer boundary. */
>> u32 sdma_boundary;
>>
>> + unsigned long long data_timeout;
>
> msecs_to_jiffies() will truncate to 'unsigned int' anyway, so this might as
> well be 'unsigned int'.
>
okay.
Thanks
Kishon