
Dear Andy,
On 5/12/21 7:09 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
Dear Andy
On 5/11/21 4:39 PM, Andy.Wu@sony.com wrote:
Hi Jaehoon
If you're ok, I will test after reverted the patch on tomorrow, and I will share result. Or I will try to reproduce timeout issue on 410c board.
Sorry, but is there any update for this comments?
Sorry for replying too late. I had been doing other things. So if you're ok, i will test on my own boards with your patch until this weekend. (If possible, i will also check 410c board.)
Reviewed-by: Jaehoon Chung jh80.chung@samsung.com
If a problem is occurred again, I will fix again.
Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung
Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung
Best Regards Andy Wu
-----Original Message----- From: U-Boot u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de On Behalf Of Jaehoon Chung Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:13 PM To: Peng Fan peng.fan@nxp.com; jh80.chung@gmail.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhci: set to INT_DATA_END when there are data"
Hi Peng,
On 4/6/21 7:02 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhci: set to INT_DATA_END when there are data"
Hi Jaehoon
Did you test on latest u-boot? v2018.01 was too old version.
Yes, we tested on v2020.04, although there is no such issue, but I think it just depends on call sequence timing.
And if my understanding is right, INT_DATA_END needs to set when there is a data. If there is no data, it doesn't need to set to it. Logically, there is no
problem, isn't?
If there is no data, but current command is RESPONSE-WITH-BUSY (like CMD6) type, the INT_DATA_END needs set also, refer sdhci spec explanation for INT_DATA_END bit:
Transfer Complete This bit indicates stop of transaction on three cases: ... (2) Completion of a command pairing with response-with-busy (R1b, R5b)
So, our modification just within if (cmd->resp_type & MMC_RSP_BUSY) judgment.
Jaehoon,
Do you see any issue if revert the patch?
If you're ok, I will test after reverted the patch on tomorrow, and I will share result. Or I will try to reproduce timeout issue on 410c board.
Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung
Thanks, Peng.
Best Regards Andy Wu
-----Original Message----- From: Jaehoon Chung jh80.chung@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 6:03 PM To: Wu, Andy Andy.Wu@sony.com; jh80.chung@samsung.com; Mo,
Yuezhang
Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: peng.fan@nxp.com; cpgs@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhci: set to INT_DATA_END when there are data"
Hi Andy,
On 3/18/21 10:59 AM, Andy.Wu@sony.com wrote: > Hi > >> I don't want to revert this commit. Is there any issue without this? > Without revert commit 17ea3c86, Some board, like Dragonboard 410c > will meet transfer data timeout error (we used v2018.01): > > U-Boot 2018.01 (Nov 26 2020 - 03:31:09 +0000) Qualcomm-DragonBoard > 410C > > DRAM: 986 MiB > MMC: sdhci@07824000: 0, sdhci@07864000: 1 > sdhci_transfer_data: Transfer data timeout > mmc_init: -70, time 10645 > *** Warning - No block device, using default environment > > And it seems the 17ea3c86 not followed the sdhci specification as > transfer complete bit should be wait for the BUSY status de-assert. > > Kernel side code also wait the transfer complete bit for > response-with-busy command.
Did you test on latest u-boot? v2018.01 was too old version.
And if my understanding is right, INT_DATA_END needs to set when there is a data.
If there is no data, it doesn't need to set to it. Logically, there is no problem,
isn't?
I will check with QC 410C board for clarifying this problem.
> >> Without this patch, some SoCs have timeout error with stop command. > Sorry, we didn't meet this stop command timeout issue, but I guess > it maybe another issue, and can be fixed with modification limited > to stop command, not for all response-with-busy command. > > Does the SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_R1B can be used for this case?
Well, it can be used.
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
> > Best Regards > Andy Wu > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: U-Boot u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de On Behalf Of Jaehoon >> Chung >> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:44 AM >> To: Mo, Yuezhang Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Cc: peng.fan@nxp.com; cpgs@samsung.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: sdhci: set to INT_DATA_END when >> there are data" >> >> Hi >> >> On 3/17/21 3:44 PM, Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com wrote: >>> This reverts commit 17ea3c862865c0d704646f67dbf8412f9ff54f59. >>> >>> In eMMC specification, for the response-with-busy(R1b, R5b) >>> command, the DAT0 will driven to LOW as BUSY status, and in sdhci >>> specification, the transfer complete bit should be wait for BUSY >>> status de-assert. >>> >>> All response-with-busy commands don't contain data, the data >>> judgement is no need. >> >> I don't want to revert this commit. Is there any issue without this? >> Without this patch, some SoCs have timeout error with stop command. >> >> To prevent it, it needs to increase timeout value at that time. >> (Timeout value can't fix each boards, waste time to find proper >> value, and be performance degradation.) >> >> I didn't test without this patch on latest U-boot. >> But if there is no critical issue, keep it, plz. >> >> Best Regards, >> Jaehoon Chung >> >>> Signed-off-by: Yuezhang.Mo Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c index >>> d9ab6a0a83..8568f65b18 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c >>> @@ -258,8 +258,7 @@ static int sdhci_send_command(struct mmc
*mmc,
>> struct mmc_cmd *cmd, >>> flags = SDHCI_CMD_RESP_LONG; >>> else if (cmd->resp_type & MMC_RSP_BUSY) { >>> flags = SDHCI_CMD_RESP_SHORT_BUSY; >>> - if (data) >>> - mask |= SDHCI_INT_DATA_END; >>> + mask |= SDHCI_INT_DATA_END; >>> } else >>> flags = SDHCI_CMD_RESP_SHORT; >>> >>>