| Message ID | d2444591-c91b-a94d-71e2-9dedc3b6c514@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mmc: core: log empty non-removable slots | expand |
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 19:01, Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> wrote: > > An empty non-removable slot might be the symptom of probing too early. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> I took the liberty of adjusting the code and the commit message a bit. Please let me know if it doesn't look good to you. So, applied for next, thanks! Kind regards Uffe > --- > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > index 426c7f66b3492..b8137baecee7c 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > @@ -2257,6 +2257,10 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work) > break; > } > > + if (!mmc_card_is_removable(host) && !host->card) > + pr_info("%s: no card detected, check post-power-on-delay-ms", > + mmc_hostname(host)); > + > /* > * Ignore the command timeout errors observed during > * the card init as those are excepted. > -- > 2.25.1
On 23/03/2023 13:13, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 19:01, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> An empty non-removable slot might be the symptom of probing too early. > > I took the liberty of adjusting the code and the commit message a bit. > Please let me know if it doesn't look good to you. > > So, applied for next, thanks! Thanks for reviewing & merging. Can you tell me (for my knowledge) why it's better to check host->bus_ops than host->card ? If the situation should not happen, perhaps we should use pr_warn? Regards
On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 at 16:33, Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> wrote: > > On 23/03/2023 13:13, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 19:01, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > > >> An empty non-removable slot might be the symptom of probing too early. > > > > I took the liberty of adjusting the code and the commit message a bit. > > Please let me know if it doesn't look good to you. > > > > So, applied for next, thanks! > > Thanks for reviewing & merging. > > Can you tell me (for my knowledge) why it's better to check > host->bus_ops than host->card ? It doesn't really matter at this point, but to keep consistency for some other earlier code in mmc_rescan(), I decided to use host->bus_ops instead. > > If the situation should not happen, perhaps we should use pr_warn? Yes, maybe you are right. In principle, I didn't want to use the warning level as I simply didn't know if we would end up spamming the log with lots of prints for various platforms. Perhaps we should change, when we know a bit more? Kind regards Uffe
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c index 426c7f66b3492..b8137baecee7c 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c @@ -2257,6 +2257,10 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work) break; } + if (!mmc_card_is_removable(host) && !host->card) + pr_info("%s: no card detected, check post-power-on-delay-ms", + mmc_hostname(host)); + /* * Ignore the command timeout errors observed during * the card init as those are excepted.
An empty non-removable slot might be the symptom of probing too early. Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> --- drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)