| Message ID | 20200827075809.1.If179abf5ecb67c963494db79c3bc4247d987419b@changeid (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 9d5dcefb7b114d610aeb2371f6a6f119af316e43 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mmc: sdhci-msm: Add retries when all tuning phases are found valid | expand |
On 2020-08-27 20:28, Douglas Anderson wrote: > As the comments in this patch say, if we tune and find all phases are > valid it's _almost_ as bad as no phases being found valid. Probably > all phases are not really reliable but we didn't detect where the > unreliable place is. That means we'll essentially be guessing and > hoping we get a good phase. > > This is not just a problem in theory. It was causing real problems on > a real board. On that board, most often phase 10 is found as the only > invalid phase, though sometimes 10 and 11 are invalid and sometimes > just 11. Some percentage of the time, however, all phases are found > to be valid. When this happens, the current logic will decide to use > phase 11. Since phase 11 is sometimes found to be invalid, this is a > bad choice. Sure enough, when phase 11 is picked we often get mmc > errors later in boot. > > I have seen cases where all phases were found to be valid 3 times in a > row, so increase the retry count to 10 just to be extra sure. > > Fixes: 415b5a75da43 ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Add platform_execute_tuning > implementation") > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > Thanks for adding this logic. Reviewed-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > index b7e47107a31a..1b78106681e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_cdr(struct sdhci_host > *host, bool enable) > static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > { > struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); > - int tuning_seq_cnt = 3; > + int tuning_seq_cnt = 10; > u8 phase, tuned_phases[16], tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > int rc; > struct mmc_ios ios = host->mmc->ios; > @@ -1221,6 +1221,22 @@ static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct > mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > } while (++phase < ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)); > > if (tuned_phase_cnt) { > + if (tuned_phase_cnt == ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)) { > + /* > + * All phases valid is _almost_ as bad as no phases > + * valid. Probably all phases are not really reliable > + * but we didn't detect where the unreliable place is. > + * That means we'll essentially be guessing and hoping > + * we get a good phase. Better to try a few times. > + */ > + dev_dbg(mmc_dev(mmc), "%s: All phases valid; try again\n", > + mmc_hostname(mmc)); > + if (--tuning_seq_cnt) { > + tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > + goto retry; > + } > + } > + > rc = msm_find_most_appropriate_phase(host, tuned_phases, > tuned_phase_cnt); > if (rc < 0)
On 27/08/20 5:58 pm, Douglas Anderson wrote: > As the comments in this patch say, if we tune and find all phases are > valid it's _almost_ as bad as no phases being found valid. Probably > all phases are not really reliable but we didn't detect where the > unreliable place is. That means we'll essentially be guessing and > hoping we get a good phase. > > This is not just a problem in theory. It was causing real problems on > a real board. On that board, most often phase 10 is found as the only > invalid phase, though sometimes 10 and 11 are invalid and sometimes > just 11. Some percentage of the time, however, all phases are found > to be valid. When this happens, the current logic will decide to use > phase 11. Since phase 11 is sometimes found to be invalid, this is a > bad choice. Sure enough, when phase 11 is picked we often get mmc > errors later in boot. > > I have seen cases where all phases were found to be valid 3 times in a > row, so increase the retry count to 10 just to be extra sure. > > Fixes: 415b5a75da43 ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Add platform_execute_tuning implementation") > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> > --- > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > index b7e47107a31a..1b78106681e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_cdr(struct sdhci_host *host, bool enable) > static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > { > struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); > - int tuning_seq_cnt = 3; > + int tuning_seq_cnt = 10; > u8 phase, tuned_phases[16], tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > int rc; > struct mmc_ios ios = host->mmc->ios; > @@ -1221,6 +1221,22 @@ static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > } while (++phase < ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)); > > if (tuned_phase_cnt) { > + if (tuned_phase_cnt == ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)) { > + /* > + * All phases valid is _almost_ as bad as no phases > + * valid. Probably all phases are not really reliable > + * but we didn't detect where the unreliable place is. > + * That means we'll essentially be guessing and hoping > + * we get a good phase. Better to try a few times. > + */ > + dev_dbg(mmc_dev(mmc), "%s: All phases valid; try again\n", > + mmc_hostname(mmc)); > + if (--tuning_seq_cnt) { > + tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > + goto retry; > + } > + } > + > rc = msm_find_most_appropriate_phase(host, tuned_phases, > tuned_phase_cnt); > if (rc < 0) >
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 16:59, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > As the comments in this patch say, if we tune and find all phases are > valid it's _almost_ as bad as no phases being found valid. Probably > all phases are not really reliable but we didn't detect where the > unreliable place is. That means we'll essentially be guessing and > hoping we get a good phase. > > This is not just a problem in theory. It was causing real problems on > a real board. On that board, most often phase 10 is found as the only > invalid phase, though sometimes 10 and 11 are invalid and sometimes > just 11. Some percentage of the time, however, all phases are found > to be valid. When this happens, the current logic will decide to use > phase 11. Since phase 11 is sometimes found to be invalid, this is a > bad choice. Sure enough, when phase 11 is picked we often get mmc > errors later in boot. > > I have seen cases where all phases were found to be valid 3 times in a > row, so increase the retry count to 10 just to be extra sure. > > Fixes: 415b5a75da43 ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Add platform_execute_tuning implementation") > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Applied for fixes and by adding a stable tag, thanks! Kind regards Uffe > --- > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > index b7e47107a31a..1b78106681e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_cdr(struct sdhci_host *host, bool enable) > static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > { > struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); > - int tuning_seq_cnt = 3; > + int tuning_seq_cnt = 10; > u8 phase, tuned_phases[16], tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > int rc; > struct mmc_ios ios = host->mmc->ios; > @@ -1221,6 +1221,22 @@ static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > } while (++phase < ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)); > > if (tuned_phase_cnt) { > + if (tuned_phase_cnt == ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)) { > + /* > + * All phases valid is _almost_ as bad as no phases > + * valid. Probably all phases are not really reliable > + * but we didn't detect where the unreliable place is. > + * That means we'll essentially be guessing and hoping > + * we get a good phase. Better to try a few times. > + */ > + dev_dbg(mmc_dev(mmc), "%s: All phases valid; try again\n", > + mmc_hostname(mmc)); > + if (--tuning_seq_cnt) { > + tuned_phase_cnt = 0; > + goto retry; > + } > + } > + > rc = msm_find_most_appropriate_phase(host, tuned_phases, > tuned_phase_cnt); > if (rc < 0) > -- > 2.28.0.297.g1956fa8f8d-goog >
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c index b7e47107a31a..1b78106681e0 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void sdhci_msm_set_cdr(struct sdhci_host *host, bool enable) static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) { struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); - int tuning_seq_cnt = 3; + int tuning_seq_cnt = 10; u8 phase, tuned_phases[16], tuned_phase_cnt = 0; int rc; struct mmc_ios ios = host->mmc->ios; @@ -1221,6 +1221,22 @@ static int sdhci_msm_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) } while (++phase < ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)); if (tuned_phase_cnt) { + if (tuned_phase_cnt == ARRAY_SIZE(tuned_phases)) { + /* + * All phases valid is _almost_ as bad as no phases + * valid. Probably all phases are not really reliable + * but we didn't detect where the unreliable place is. + * That means we'll essentially be guessing and hoping + * we get a good phase. Better to try a few times. + */ + dev_dbg(mmc_dev(mmc), "%s: All phases valid; try again\n", + mmc_hostname(mmc)); + if (--tuning_seq_cnt) { + tuned_phase_cnt = 0; + goto retry; + } + } + rc = msm_find_most_appropriate_phase(host, tuned_phases, tuned_phase_cnt); if (rc < 0)
As the comments in this patch say, if we tune and find all phases are valid it's _almost_ as bad as no phases being found valid. Probably all phases are not really reliable but we didn't detect where the unreliable place is. That means we'll essentially be guessing and hoping we get a good phase. This is not just a problem in theory. It was causing real problems on a real board. On that board, most often phase 10 is found as the only invalid phase, though sometimes 10 and 11 are invalid and sometimes just 11. Some percentage of the time, however, all phases are found to be valid. When this happens, the current logic will decide to use phase 11. Since phase 11 is sometimes found to be invalid, this is a bad choice. Sure enough, when phase 11 is picked we often get mmc errors later in boot. I have seen cases where all phases were found to be valid 3 times in a row, so increase the retry count to 10 just to be extra sure. Fixes: 415b5a75da43 ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Add platform_execute_tuning implementation") Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)