On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:30:09PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
Hi Stefan,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
Hi Steve,
On 27.06.2016 23:43, Steve Rae wrote:
Otherwise, ocassionally see errors like this: Flashing sparse image at offset 2078720 Flashing Sparse Image sdhci_send_command: Timeout for status update! mmc fail to send stop cmd write_sparse_image: Write failed, block #2181088 [0]
This does not affect the actual writing speed, which is controlled by the default value: CONFIG_SDHCI_CMD_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT
It only increases the retries when reading: SDHCI_INT_STATUS to avoid the timeout error.
Signed-off-by: Steve Rae steve.rae@raedomain.com
as per the discussion in: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-June/258966.html this supercedes: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/615994/
IIRC, I've suggested to move SDHCI_CMD_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT to Kconfig and use the old value as default value. So that you can overwrite it for your board / platform via your defconfig. But I have no strong feelings here - your current version also works for me and does not "clutter" the Kconfig subsystem with too many values. So:
Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Thanks, Stefan
Thanks for the review... I didn't want to touch the "performance" algorithm related to SDHCI_CMD_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT (which maybe should be in Kconfig). However, the retry loop related to SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT doesn't need to be in Kconfig -- it is just a define.
... so how is this handled in the kernel? I'm assuming some DT property..
-- Tom
( we discussed this in the other email thread; but I'll copy it here... )
I thought I saw this in another thread, thanks.
It looks like (v.4.6) the code loops for max_loops=16, and it looks like the loop delay is created by a write (which does not exist in the U-Boot code): sdhci_writel(host, mask, SDHCI_INT_STATUS);Maybe we should rewrite the area in question, for the next release to be like the kernel?
Maybe - I don't know enough about it -- it looks like there are interrupts involved.... ( Who could this be assigned to? ) I was just trying to get it to run without hitting the time out.... Thanks, Steve
-- Tom
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot