Philip Rakity wrote: > 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.
I checked the timeout value to 0xa (i didn't use broken timeout value. if i used that quirk, set to 0xe) When suspend/resume..timeout value set to 0x0...so i set them... > BTW-- are you using sdhci.c as the SD Controller ? Yes .I'm using sdhci.c as 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
