Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: Prefer asynchronous probe

2020-09-03 Thread Doug Anderson
Hi, On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:44 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 16:35, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 01:43, Douglas Anderson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Turning on initcall debug on

Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: Prefer asynchronous probe

2020-09-03 Thread Ulf Hansson
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 16:35, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 01:43, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > > > Turning on initcall debug on one system showed this: > > > initcall sdhci_msm_driver_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0

Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: Prefer asynchronous probe

2020-09-03 Thread Doug Anderson
Hi, On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 01:43, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > Turning on initcall debug on one system showed this: > > initcall sdhci_msm_driver_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0 after 34782 usecs > > > > The lion's share of this time (~33 ms) wa

Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: Prefer asynchronous probe

2020-09-03 Thread Ulf Hansson
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 01:43, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > Turning on initcall debug on one system showed this: > initcall sdhci_msm_driver_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0 after 34782 usecs > > The lion's share of this time (~33 ms) was in mmc_power_up(). This > shouldn't be terribly surprising since th

[PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: Prefer asynchronous probe

2020-09-02 Thread Douglas Anderson
Turning on initcall debug on one system showed this: initcall sdhci_msm_driver_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0 after 34782 usecs The lion's share of this time (~33 ms) was in mmc_power_up(). This shouldn't be terribly surprising since there are a few calls to delay based on "power_delay_ms" and the de