| Message ID | 20170213180342.26172-5-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
Hi, > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:04 AM > > After we received the dataend interrupt, R1 response register carries > the value from the automatically generated stop command. Report that > info back to the MMC block layer, so we will be notified in case of e.g. > ECC errors which happened during the last transfer. > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> I tested this patch with a SD tester (SGDK320). As the commit log, this patch could pass the R1 response. So, Tested-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> However, I think the MMC block layer should check the brq->stop.resp[0] because brq->stop.error should be zero in this case and mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() is not called in mmc_blk_err_check(). Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda > --- > drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c > index b47dd9195fe3fe..a08db28b0100d6 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c > @@ -557,6 +557,9 @@ void tmio_mmc_do_data_irq(struct tmio_mmc_host *host) > dev_err(&host->pdev->dev, "unsupported stop: CMD%u,0x%x. We did CMD12,0\n", > stop->opcode, stop->arg); > > + /* fill in response from auto CMD12 */ > + stop->resp[0] = sd_ctrl_read16_and_16_as_32(host, CTL_RESPONSE); > + > sd_ctrl_write16(host, CTL_STOP_INTERNAL_ACTION, 0); > } > > -- > 2.11.0
Shimoda-san, Ulf, On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:06:47AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > Hi, > > > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:04 AM > > > > After we received the dataend interrupt, R1 response register carries > > the value from the automatically generated stop command. Report that > > info back to the MMC block layer, so we will be notified in case of e.g. > > ECC errors which happened during the last transfer. > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > I tested this patch with a SD tester (SGDK320). > As the commit log, this patch could pass the R1 response. So, > > Tested-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> Thank you very much for testing! > However, I think the MMC block layer should check the brq->stop.resp[0] > because brq->stop.error should be zero in this case and mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() > is not called in mmc_blk_err_check(). I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. Regards, Wolfram
On 14 February 2017 at 11:52, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > Shimoda-san, Ulf, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:06:47AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:04 AM >> > >> > After we received the dataend interrupt, R1 response register carries >> > the value from the automatically generated stop command. Report that >> > info back to the MMC block layer, so we will be notified in case of e.g. >> > ECC errors which happened during the last transfer. >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> >> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> >> >> I tested this patch with a SD tester (SGDK320). >> As the commit log, this patch could pass the R1 response. So, >> >> Tested-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> > > Thank you very much for testing! > >> However, I think the MMC block layer should check the brq->stop.resp[0] >> because brq->stop.error should be zero in this case and mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() >> is not called in mmc_blk_err_check(). > > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). Does that work for you? Kind regards Uffe
> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to > > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the > > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I > > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it > > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. > > The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is > to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. > Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. > > In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the > mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). > > Does that work for you? It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the core. We roughly need something like this: if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED) stop.error = -EIO; We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an apropriate error value and call that just before the check in mmc_blk_err_check(). Do you get what I mean? Thanks, Wolfram
On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. >> >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. >> >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). >> >> Does that work for you? > > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the > core. We roughly need something like this: > > if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED) > stop.error = -EIO; > > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in > mmc_blk_err_check(). > > Do you get what I mean? I get it - and yes you have a point. By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case. So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to), we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be consistent. Kind regards Uffe
Hi Ulf, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > > > >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to > >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the > >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I > >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it > >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. > >> > >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is > >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. > >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. > >> > >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the > >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). > >> > >> Does that work for you? > > > > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I > > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the > > core. We roughly need something like this: > > > > if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED) > > stop.error = -EIO; > > > > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we > > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an > > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in > > mmc_blk_err_check(). > > > > Do you get what I mean? > > I get it - and yes you have a point. Cool. > By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and > mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't What do you mean with clean-up here? I would have just added the helper function checking R1 error bits and setting stop.error accordingly. > want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case. > > So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to), > we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be > consistent. I agree. That's what I meant with "checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)?". I think these are the candidates we care about. Thanks, Wolfram
On 16 February 2017 at 09:37, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:57:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 15 February 2017 at 16:02, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: >> > >> >> > I see. Ulf, do you think it makes sense to extend the condition when to >> >> > call mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() with checking if stop.resp[0] has one of the >> >> > R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', too)? I >> >> > agree with Shimoda-san, that the core is a good place to do it, since it >> >> > is about parsing the R1 and not the status bits of the host hardware. >> >> >> >> The method we use to indicate a stop command error to the mmc core, is >> >> to set ->stop.error in the host driver before completing the request. >> >> Perhaps set it to -EIO or -EILSEQ. >> >> >> >> In that way mmc_blk_err_check() sees the error and invokes the >> >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery() to deal with it (response parsing etc). >> >> >> >> Does that work for you? >> > >> > It would work, yes. Since R1 response format is hardware independent, I >> > wondered if checking for ECC errors wouldn't be better suited in the >> > core. We roughly need something like this: >> > >> > if (stop.resp[0] & R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED) >> > stop.error = -EIO; >> > >> > We can copy this into every driver, of course. Yet, I wondered if we >> > couldn't have a helper function mapping the R1 error bits to an >> > apropriate error value and call that just before the check in >> > mmc_blk_err_check(). >> > >> > Do you get what I mean? >> >> I get it - and yes you have a point. > > Cool. > >> By looking at the code in mmc_blk_err_check() and >> mmc_blk_cmd_recovery(), it deserves a clean-up. That said, I don't > > What do you mean with clean-up here? I would have just added the helper ...perhaps some re-factoring as the functions do lots of stuff. > function checking R1 error bits and setting stop.error accordingly. That's ok, I don't require you to do the clean up, but it would be nice. :-) > >> want to treat R1_CARD_ECC_FAILED as a special case. >> >> So if you decide to add this check in the core (which I am open to), >> we should also add checks the other potential R1 errors, to be >> consistent. > > I agree. That's what I meant with "checking if stop.resp[0] has one of > the R1_* bits set which are marked with 'ex' (and probably 'erx', > too)?". I think these are the candidates we care about. > > Thanks, > > Wolfram Kind regards Uffe
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c index b47dd9195fe3fe..a08db28b0100d6 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_pio.c @@ -557,6 +557,9 @@ void tmio_mmc_do_data_irq(struct tmio_mmc_host *host) dev_err(&host->pdev->dev, "unsupported stop: CMD%u,0x%x. We did CMD12,0\n", stop->opcode, stop->arg); + /* fill in response from auto CMD12 */ + stop->resp[0] = sd_ctrl_read16_and_16_as_32(host, CTL_RESPONSE); + sd_ctrl_write16(host, CTL_STOP_INTERNAL_ACTION, 0); }