On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > Philip Rakity wrote: >> On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> >>> Philip Rakity wrote: >>>> Can we just remove the quirk for broken timeout and just set the timeout >>>> to 0xe in sdhci.c? >>> you means that set the timeout to 0xe without broken timeout in sdhci.c? >> >> yes >> >> but I also think we should remove the quirk and change sdhci.c to use 0xe >> ALL THE TIME. >> I do not see a downside to doing this other than a longer timeout period. >> Considering the broken cards >> that are out there in practice one needs to set it to this value anyway for >> cards to work. >> > > If we set the fixed timeout value to 0xe, we should remove the broken timeout > value. right. > But in my patch, nevertheless i used the broken timeout value quirk, need to > reset timeout value at that time. > Because if didn't set timeout value, broken card fire busy state..so happen > the data timeout error. > > Anyway, your opinion seem good..
The timeout value in the host controller should not change once it is set. It s not supposed to change value on reset (for example). Curious -- if you read the value when you are in the busy state before you set it -- what value is there. BTW-- are you using sdhci.c as the SD Controller ? > Thanks > >>>> The problem with the quirk is you need to know when to set it and the >>>> problem with the existing quirk is that one has to set it to work with bad >>>> cards. >>> I know when use quirk...and what use one... >>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: linux-mmc-ow...@vger.kernel.org [linux-mmc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Jaehoon Chung [jh80.ch...@samsung.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:37 AM >>>> To: Wolfram Sang >>>> Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; Chris Ball; kyungmin Park; Andrew Morton; >>>> m...@console-pimps.org >>>> Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] SDHCI: add quirk for data timeout value when card >>>> busy. >>>> >>>>>> Maybe, happen for all sdhci-controllers... >>>>> My point is: If it is needed for all SDHCI-controllers, we don't need a >>>>> quirk and can apply your code unconditionally. >>>>> >>>> You're right. But i'm not sure, happen for all sdhci-controller. >>>> so i send to RFC patch.. >>>> I also hope apply my code unconditionally. >>>> >>>> the reason using quirk...every card didn't happen this issue.. >>>> if not happen this issue, we need not set timeout value..at that time.. >>>> >>>> when needs, entered and set timeout value..(conditionally) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Card is configurable with eMMC spec..But sdhci-controller didn't >>>>>> support that card. So SDHCI controller need to use quriks.. >>>>> Can we find out if this is a general issue? >>>>> >>>> Hmm..i'm sure you can find out this issue.. >>>> Have ever find out this issue(similar case)..anybody? >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Wolfram >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
