Hi Andy, I understood your comment, I will try to solve the problem. (didn't change the udelay and loop count) Then Could you merge the patch [1/4~3/4]? I will debug more and resend the patch related with this problem.
If you can merge the patches[1/4~3/4], I think that other people can also debug this problem. (if produce the problem.) Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung On 09/01/2012 06:16 AM, Andy Fleming wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com> wrote: >> Samsung-SoC is taken the too late to changing the interrupt status register. >> This patch is ensure to check the interrupt status register for Samsung-SoC. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com> >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com> >> --- > > > You should write, here, what you changed in v3. > > >> drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c >> index ac39e48..d0b8d24 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c >> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static int sdhci_transfer_data(struct sdhci_host *host, >> struct mmc_data *data, >> { >> unsigned int stat, rdy, mask, timeout, block = 0; >> >> - timeout = 10000; >> + timeout = 100000; >> rdy = SDHCI_INT_SPACE_AVAIL | SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL; >> mask = SDHCI_DATA_AVAILABLE | SDHCI_SPACE_AVAILABLE; >> do { >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int sdhci_transfer_data(struct sdhci_host *host, >> struct mmc_data *data, >> } >> #endif >> if (timeout-- > 0) >> - udelay(10); >> + udelay(20); > > > ... This change makes no sense. > > Actually, this whole *function* makes no sense. It seems to me that if > you attempt to transfer more than 100000 blocks, it will fail. A > timeout variable should only be used to control the number of > iterations through a wait loop. This loop does more than wait, it also > executes an ongoing, multiblock transfer. > > I'm not exactly sure what issue this change is solving, but extending > the delay, and increasing the number of iterations is *not* the > solution. You're just hiding the problem. > > You need to figure out why your transfer failed, and then modify the > code to actually solve that problem. And I strongly think you need to > refactor this transfer loop so that it properly transfers all desired > blocks, and times out only when timeouts happen. > > Andy > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot