Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2012-01-13 Thread Aaro Koskinen

Hi,

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Dmitry Antipov wrote:

On 01/13/2012 05:22 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:


Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices
the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I
think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).


I'm worrying about this:

mmc_delay(DIV_ROUND_UP(card->ext_csd.sa_timeout, 1))

since I have no ideas about typical values for this timeout.
If it may be too small (<=10 us), using usleep_range() makes no sense.


Hmm, but the code above is rounding it up to at least 1 ms?

A.
--
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


Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2012-01-13 Thread Dmitry Antipov

On 01/13/2012 05:22 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:


Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices
the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I
think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).


I'm worrying about this:

mmc_delay(DIV_ROUND_UP(card->ext_csd.sa_timeout, 1))

since I have no ideas about typical values for this timeout.
If it may be too small (<=10 us), using usleep_range() makes no sense.

Dmitry
--
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


Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2012-01-13 Thread Aaro Koskinen

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dmitry Antipov wrote:

From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Antipov 
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

---


Shouldn't you add a proper patch description and a signed-off-by line?


drivers/mmc/core/core.h |8 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
index 14664f1..a77851e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
@@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host);

static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
{
-   if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {
-   cond_resched();
-   mdelay(ms);
-   } else {
-   msleep(ms);
-   }
+   unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC;
+   usleep_range(us, us + 1000);
}


Anyway, I think the change is good. On systems with multiple MMC devices
the boot/probe can spend 100-200 ms alone just doing busylooping delays. I
think e.g. in mmc_rescan() the code uses frequently mmc_delay(10).


void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work);
--
1.7.7.4


A.
--
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


Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2011-12-26 Thread Sujit Reddy Thumma

Hi Antipov,

Sorry for the delayed response. Please find some comments below:

On 12/21/2011 6:35 PM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:

On 12/21/2011 03:25 PM, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote:


I have posted similar patch some time back.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.msm/2119.

Would you like to comment on that?


- I believe we should forget about jiffies, HZ and other similar obsolete
timekeeping stuff;

- I have no ideas where did you get 'most typical' 20 ms. MMC subsystem
uses
mmc_delay() with two compile-time fixed values 1 and 10 ms, with the only
exception of card-dependent sleep/awake timeout. I was unable to find a
table
with typical values, but it's rounded up to >= 1 ms anyway.


The main aim of my patch was to fix mmc_delay() to give accurate delay.
You might want to refer to Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt 
(Section: SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS) to know why usleep_range() 
must be used instead of msleep for delays less than 20ms (or more 
accurately two jiffies, since in HZ=100 systems this comes to 20ms).


Also, in the documentation it is suggested that for delays greater than 
10ms+ use msleep(). Although MMC subsystem doesn't use mmc_delay() for 
greater than 10ms today but I guess we should keep it for future purpose 
and just not have only usleep_range() as your patch did.




Dmitry


--
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


Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2011-12-21 Thread Dmitry Antipov

On 12/21/2011 03:25 PM, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote:


I have posted similar patch some time back.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.msm/2119.

Would you like to comment on that?


- I believe we should forget about jiffies, HZ and other similar obsolete
  timekeeping stuff;

- I have no ideas where did you get 'most typical' 20 ms. MMC subsystem uses
  mmc_delay() with two compile-time fixed values 1 and 10 ms, with the only
  exception of card-dependent sleep/awake timeout. I was unable to find a table
  with typical values, but it's rounded up to >= 1 ms anyway.

Dmitry
--
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


Re: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2011-12-21 Thread Sujit Reddy Thumma

On 12/21/2011 12:26 PM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:

 From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Antipov 
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

---
drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 8 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
index 14664f1..a77851e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
@@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host);

static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
{
- if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {
- cond_resched();
- mdelay(ms);
- } else {
- msleep(ms);
- }
+ unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC;
+ usleep_range(us, us + 1000);


I have posted similar patch some time back. 
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.msm/2119.


Would you like to comment on that?

Thanks,
Sujit


}

void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work);


--
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


[PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

2011-12-20 Thread Dmitry Antipov

From f447d78db65c6675e69466e8ed08364ff065ac08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Antipov 
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:51:03 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: use usleep_range() in mmc_delay()

---
 drivers/mmc/core/core.h |8 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
index 14664f1..a77851e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.h
@@ -47,12 +47,8 @@ void mmc_power_off(struct mmc_host *host);

 static inline void mmc_delay(unsigned int ms)
 {
-   if (ms < 1000 / HZ) {
-   cond_resched();
-   mdelay(ms);
-   } else {
-   msleep(ms);
-   }
+   unsigned long us = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC;
+   usleep_range(us, us + 1000);
 }

 void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work);
--
1.7.7.4

--
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