Hi Adrian,
On Friday 16 March 2018 07:51 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 16/03/18 08:29, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thursday 15 March 2018 06:43 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 07/03/18 15:20, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> sdhci has a 10 second timeout to catch devices that stop responding.
>>>> Instead of programming 10 second arbitrary value, calculate the total time
>>>> it would take for the entire transfer to happen and program the timeout
>>>> value accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kis...@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 47
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>> index 1dd117cbeb6e..baab67bfa39b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>>> @@ -709,6 +709,36 @@ static u32 sdhci_sdma_address(struct sdhci_host *host)
>>>> return sg_dma_address(host->data->sg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>> + struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>>> + unsigned int target_timeout)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
>>>> + struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc;
>>>> + u64 transfer_time;
>>>> + struct mmc_ios *ios = &mmc->ios;
>>>> + unsigned char bus_width = 1 << ios->bus_width;
>>>> + unsigned int blksz;
>>>> + unsigned int freq;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (data) {
>>>> + blksz = data->blksz;
>>>> + freq = host->mmc->actual_clock ? : host->clock;
>>>> + transfer_time = (u64)blksz * NSEC_PER_SEC * (8 / bus_width);
>>>> + do_div(transfer_time, freq);
>>>> + /* multiply by '2' to account for any unknowns */
>>>> + transfer_time = transfer_time * 2;
>>>> + /* calculate timeout for the entire data */
>>>> + host->data_timeout = (data->blocks * ((target_timeout *
>>>> + NSEC_PER_USEC) +
>>>> + transfer_time));
>>>
>>> (target_timeout * NSEC_PER_USEC) might be 32-bit and therefore overflow
>>> for timeouts greater than about 4 seconds.
>>>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + host->data_timeout = (u64)target_timeout * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + host->data_timeout += MMC_CMD_TRANSFER_TIME;
>>>
>>> Need to allow for target_timeout == 0 so:
>>>
>>> if (host->data_timeout)
>>> host->data_timeout += MMC_CMD_TRANSFER_TIME;
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command
>>>> *cmd)
>>>> {
>>>> u8 count;
>>>> @@ -766,6 +796,7 @@ static u8 sdhci_calc_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>> struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>> if (count >= 0xF)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> + sdhci_calc_sw_timeout(host, cmd, target_timeout);
>>>
>>> If you make the changes I suggest for patch 6, then this would
>>> move sdhci_calc_sw_timeout() into sdhci_set_timeout().
>>>
>>> I suggest you factor out the target_timeout calculation e.g.
>>>
>>> static unsigned int sdhci_target_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>> struct mmc_command *cmd,
>>> struct mmc_data *data)
>>> {
>>> unsigned int target_timeout;
>>>
>>> /* timeout in us */
>>> if (!data)
>>> target_timeout = cmd->busy_timeout * 1000;
>>> else {
>>> target_timeout = DIV_ROUND_UP(data->timeout_ns, 1000);
>>> if (host->clock && data->timeout_clks) {
>>> unsigned long long val;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * data->timeout_clks is in units of clock cycles.
>>> * host->clock is in Hz. target_timeout is in us.
>>> * Hence, us = 1000000 * cycles / Hz. Round up.
>>> */
>>> val = 1000000ULL * data->timeout_clks;
>>> if (do_div(val, host->clock))
>>> target_timeout++;
>>> target_timeout += val;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> return target_timeout;
>>> }
>>>
>>> And call it from sdhci_calc_sw_timeout()
>>>
>>>>
>>>> return count;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -1175,13 +1206,6 @@ void sdhci_send_command(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>> struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>> mdelay(1);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - timeout = jiffies;
>>>> - if (!cmd->data && cmd->busy_timeout > 9000)
>>>> - timeout += DIV_ROUND_UP(cmd->busy_timeout, 1000) * HZ + HZ;
>>>> - else
>>>> - timeout += 10 * HZ;
>>>> - sdhci_mod_timer(host, cmd->mrq, timeout);
>>>> -
>>>> host->cmd = cmd;
>>>> if (sdhci_data_line_cmd(cmd)) {
>>>> WARN_ON(host->data_cmd);
>>>> @@ -1221,6 +1245,15 @@ void sdhci_send_command(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>>> struct mmc_command *cmd)
>>>> cmd->opcode == MMC_SEND_TUNING_BLOCK_HS200)
>>>> flags |= SDHCI_CMD_DATA;
>>>>
>>>> + timeout = jiffies;
>>>> + if (host->data_timeout > 0) {
>>>
>>> This can be just:
>>>
>>> if (host->data_timeout) {
>>>
>>>> + timeout += nsecs_to_jiffies(host->data_timeout);
>>>> + host->data_timeout = 0;
>>>
>>> It would be better to initialize host->data_timeout = 0 at the top of
>>> sdhci_prepare_data().
>>>
>>> Also still need:
>>>
>>> else if (!cmd->data && cmd->busy_timeout > 9000) {
>>> timeout += DIV_ROUND_UP(cmd->busy_timeout, 1000) * HZ + HZ;
>>
>> sdhci_calc_sw_timeout should have calculated the timeout for this case too
>> no?
>
> Yes, but I was thinking you would only calculate when it was needed.
I feel since we would have anyways calculated data_timeout, we should use that
instead unless you see a problem with that.
Thanks
Kishon
