> -----Original Message----- > From: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:11 AM > To: Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albe...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray > <ray...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver > > Thank you Hai Bu for the response. > > I have broken this into three separate patches. There were no specific > recommendation in the speciation for seen multiple issues on all the UFS > platforms like LKF, ADP-P and EHK.
Hello, After quickly going through the new series sent, I do not see my previous inline comments and questions get addressed. Could you please help to provide your feedbacks and update the patches? > And these changes worked on all the three with various UFS cards. > Can you please review and help to get this changes at the earliest in master > as well as Downstream/master. Sorry, since there is an upcoming stable tag approaching, at this moment, I prefer to hold this feature after the stable tag (March 6th). Best Regards, Hao Wu > > Thanks > ~Purna > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 2:10 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Bandaru, > Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com> > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albe...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray > <ray...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Wu, > Hao > > A > > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38 PM > > To: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com>; > > devel@edk2.groups.io > > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albe...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray > > <ray...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: > > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao > > <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 5:02 PM > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io > > > Cc: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao > > > <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com>; > > > Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albe...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray > > > <ray...@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com> > > > Subject: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: Improve Error > handling > > > of Ufs Pass Thru driver > > > > > > From: Bandaru <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com> > > > > > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3217 > > > > > > Following is the brief description of the changes > > > 1) There are cards that can take upto 600ms for Init and hence increase > > > the time out for fDeviceInit polling loop. > > > 2) Add UFS host conctroller reset in the last retry of Link start up. > > > 3) Retry sending NOP OUT command upto 10 times > > > > > > Hello Bandaru, > > > > Could you help to break this patch into a 3-patch series in V2? > > With each patch handling just one of the above 3 improvements > mentioned. > > > > For improvement 2) above, I do not see such UFS host controller > > re-enabling process being mentioned in UFSHCI 3.0 spec section 7.1.1. > > Is this process being documented somewhere else in the spec or > > suggested by device vender? > > > Sorry for missing one comment. > Could you help to add the information on what kind of tests have been > performed for the code changes? > > Thanks in advance. > > Best Regards, > Hao Wu > > > > > > More inline comments below: > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bandaru <purna.chandra.rao.band...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Mateusz Albecki <mateusz.albe...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Ray Ni <ray...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a...@intel.com> > > > > > > Change-Id: I6c0dbc1c147487e51f0ed5f2425957ae089b0160 > > > --- > > > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c | 26 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c | 18 > > > ++++++++++++------ > > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c > > > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c > > > index 9768c2e6fb..89048745be 100644 > > > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c > > > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c > > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > > /** @file > > > > > > - Copyright (c) 2014 - 2019, Intel Corporation. All rights > > > reserved.<BR> > > > + Copyright (c) 2014 - 2021, Intel Corporation. All rights > > > + reserved.<BR> > > > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.<BR> > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent > > > > > > @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ UfsFinishDeviceInitialization ( { > > > EFI_STATUS Status; > > > UINT8 DeviceInitStatus; > > > - UINT8 Timeout; > > > + UINT16 Timeout; > > > > > > DeviceInitStatus = 0xFF; > > > > > > @@ -761,17 +761,23 @@ UfsFinishDeviceInitialization ( > > > return Status; > > > } > > > > > > - Timeout = 5; > > > + Timeout = 6000; //There are cards that can take upto 600ms. > > > > > > Please help to add a macro in file UfsPassThru.h: > > #define UFS_INIT_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT 6000 And use the macro here. > > > > Also a minor comment, could you help to use the below comment format? > > // > > // There are UFS devices that can take up to 600ms to clear the > > fDeviceInit flag // Timeout = UFS_INIT_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT; > > > > > > > do { > > > + MicroSecondDelay (100); //Give 100 us and then start polling. > > > > > > For the above delay movement, do you observe any side effect for the > > origin code? > > If not, I prefer to leave the origin behavior: > > do { > > UfsReadFlag(); > > ... > > MicroSecondDelay (1); > > } while (...) > > since doing so will have the least performance penalty for devices > > that respond fast. > > > > > > > Status = UfsReadFlag (Private, UfsFlagDevInit, &DeviceInitStatus); > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > return Status; > > > } > > > - MicroSecondDelay (1); > > > Timeout--; > > > } while (DeviceInitStatus != 0 && Timeout != 0); > > > > > > + if (Timeout == 0) { > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "UfsFinishDeviceInitialization > > > DeviceInitStatus=%x EFI_TIMEOUT \n", DeviceInitStatus)); > > > + return EFI_TIMEOUT; > > > + } else { > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "UfsFinishDeviceInitialization Timeout > > > + left=%x EFI_SUCCESS \n", Timeout)); > > > return EFI_SUCCESS; > > > > > > Please help to add two spaces for text alignment in the above line. > > > > > > > + } > > > } > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -905,9 +911,19 @@ UfsPassThruDriverBindingStart ( > > > // At the end of the UFS Interconnect Layer initialization on > > > both host and device side, > > > // the host shall send a NOP OUT UPIU to verify that the device > > > UTP Layer is ready. > > > // > > > > > > For the NOP OUT - NOP IN improvement, could you help to provide more > > information on what is the current issue for some devices? > > Is it a timeout happened for: > > Status = UfsWaitMemSet (Private, UFS_HC_UTRLDBR_OFFSET, BIT0 << > > Slot, 0, UFS_TIMEOUT); (If so, have you tried increasing the last > > parameter like > > '10*UFS_TIMEOUT'?) Or the case is that NopInUpiu->Resp has a non-zero > > value? > > > > I found that in the UFS 3.0 spec: > > |> For some implementations, the device UTP layer may not be > > |> initialized yet, therefore the device may not respond promptly to > > |> NOP OUT UPIU sending NOP IN UPIU. > > |> The host waits until it receives the NOP IN UPIU from the device... > > And there is no mention for the retry scheme. > > > > > > > + for (Index = 10; Index > 0; Index--) { > > > Status = UfsExecNopCmds (Private); > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Ufs Sending NOP IN command Error, Status > > > = %r\n", Status)); > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Ufs Sending NOP IN command Error, > Index > > > = %x Status = %r\n", Index, Status)); > > > + MicroSecondDelay (100); //100 us > > > + continue; > > > + } else { > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "Ufs Sent NOP OUT successfully and > > > + received > > > NOP IN, Status = %r\n", Status)); > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + if (!Index) { > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "NOP OUT failed all the 10 times Status = > > > + %r\n", Status)); > > > goto Error; > > > } > > > > > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c > > > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c > > > index 0b1030ab47..4fa5689196 100644 > > > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c > > > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c > > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ > > > UfsPassThruDxe driver is used to produce EFI_EXT_SCSI_PASS_THRU > > > protocol interface > > > for upper layer application to execute UFS-supported SCSI cmds. > > > > > > - Copyright (c) 2014 - 2019, Intel Corporation. All rights > > > reserved.<BR> > > > + Copyright (c) 2014 - 2021, Intel Corporation. All rights > > > + reserved.<BR> > > > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.<BR> > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent > > > > > > @@ -1929,17 +1929,15 @@ UfsDeviceDetection ( > > > > > > // > > > // Start UFS device detection. > > > - // Try up to 3 times for establishing data link with device. > > > + // Try up to 4 times for establishing data link with device. > > > // > > > - for (Retry = 0; Retry < 3; Retry++) { > > > + for (Retry = 0; Retry < 4; Retry++) { > > > > > > Please introduce a macro in file UfsPassThru.h: > > #define UFS_LINK_STARTUP_RETRIES 4 > > And use the macro here. > > > > Also, is it necessary to increase the retry number by 1? > > Or the device can be successfully brought up by adding a host > > controller re- enabling? > > > > > > > LinkStartupCommand.Opcode = UfsUicDmeLinkStartup; > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg1 = 0; > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg2 = 0; > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg3 = 0; > > > Status = UfsExecUicCommands (Private, &LinkStartupCommand); > > > - if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > - return EFI_DEVICE_ERROR; > > > - } > > > > > > Will the DME_LINKSTARTUP command execution fail at first and then > > succeed after retry? > > If not, I prefer to keep the origin code logic to return error status > > directly. > > > > > > > + if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > > > > Status = UfsMmioRead32 (Private, UFS_HC_STATUS_OFFSET, &Data); > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > @@ -1960,6 +1958,14 @@ UfsDeviceDetection ( > > > } > > > } > > > return EFI_SUCCESS; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + if (Retry == 2) { > > > > > > Please help to update to: > > if (Retry == UFS_LINK_STARTUP_RETRIES - 1) { > > > > And add comments like: > > // > > // Try re-enabling the UFS host controller in the last retry attempt > > // > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Hao Wu > > > > > > > + Status = UfsEnableHostController (Private); > > > + if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "UfsDeviceDetection: Enable Host > > Controller > > > Fails, Status = %r\n", Status)); > > > + return Status; > > > + } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > -- > > > 2.16.2.windows.1 > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#72014): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/72014 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80560328/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
