Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1620012 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error

Started byLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
First post2017-04-10 17:10 +0200
Last post2017-04-25 14:30 +0200
Articles 4 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-04-10 17:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error 冯伟linux <steven_feng@realsil.com.cn> - 2017-04-11 05:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error 冯伟linux <steven_feng@realsil.com.cn> - 2017-04-25 10:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-04-25 14:30 +0200

#1620012 — Re: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error

FromLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date2017-04-10 17:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] mfd:rtsx: do retry when dma transfer error
Message-ID<tuJ74-2kr-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 冯伟linux wrote:

> > --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> >  #include <linux/mfd/rtsx_pci.h>
> > +#include <linux/mmc/card.h>
> > Why is this required?
> >
> The UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR which is in "card_clock = UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR
>  - (pcr->dma_error_count *20000000)" is defined in linux/mmc/card.h, so
> it is required.

Okay.

> >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcr->lock, flags);
> > -	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL)
> > -		err = -EINVAL;
> > +	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL) {
> > +		err = -EILSEQ;
> > "Illegal byte sequence", really?
> >
> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.

You need to explain why.

> >>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
> >>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
> >>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
> >>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
> >>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
> > ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
> >
> > There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
> >
> > But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
> >
> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.

I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
20MHz once and only once.

After the first:

  card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)

... happens, the first comparison:

  card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR

... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
reduced any further.  Did you test it?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1620876

From冯伟linux <steven_feng@realsil.com.cn>
Date2017-04-11 05:50 +0200
Message-ID<tuUYy-1CP-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1620012

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
> You need to explain why.
>
When DMA transfer error with -EILSEQ, the request will retry some times,
but when with errno -EINVAL, the request will be aborted directly.
At the same time the DMA transfer error truely beacuse of the Illegal
byte sequence,
so -EILSEQ is used to instead of -EINVAL.


>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
>>>
>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
>>>
>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
>>>
>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
> 20MHz once and only once.
>
> After the first:
>
>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
>
> ... happens, the first comparison:
>
>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
>
> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
>
When the request is resent, the card_clock will be still set to
UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR,
so card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR will be always true.
The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
and the card_clock will be changed to UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
dma_error_count * 20000000.
I have tested the code, the finally clock will be reduced step by step
with the increase of dma_error_count.

steven feng
Realsil Microelectronics CO. LTD.
Mobile：181-6899-0403  Ext：57594

On 2017年04月10日 23:00, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 冯伟linux wrote:
>
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>>>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>  #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>>>  #include <linux/mfd/rtsx_pci.h>
>>> +#include <linux/mmc/card.h>
>>> Why is this required?
>>>
>> The UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR which is in "card_clock = UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR
>>  - (pcr->dma_error_count *20000000)" is defined in linux/mmc/card.h, so
>> it is required.
> Okay.
>
>>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcr->lock, flags);
>>> -	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL)
>>> -		err = -EINVAL;
>>> +	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL) {
>>> +		err = -EILSEQ;
>>> "Illegal byte sequence", really?
>>>
>> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
> You need to explain why.
>
>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
>>>
>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
>>>
>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
>>>
>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
> 20MHz once and only once.
>
> After the first:
>
>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
>
> ... happens, the first comparison:
>
>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
>
> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1630284

From冯伟linux <steven_feng@realsil.com.cn>
Date2017-04-25 10:20 +0200
Message-ID<tA3Rx-28G-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1620876

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Lee Jones:
    I send this email mainly for the fllowing two things;
    1.Is there anything unclear about the patch "mfd:rtsx: do retry when
dma transfer error"
    2.Whether the pach I submitted in email "[PATCH v4] mfd:rtsx: do
retry when DMA transfer error"
        will be merged?

steven feng
Realsil Microelectronics CO. LTD.
Mobile：181-6899-0403  Ext：57594

On 2017年04月11日 11:39, 冯伟linux wrote:
>> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
>> You need to explain why.
>>
> When DMA transfer error with -EILSEQ, the request will retry some times,
> but when with errno -EINVAL, the request will be aborted directly.
> At the same time the DMA transfer error truely beacuse of the Illegal
> byte sequence,
> so -EILSEQ is used to instead of -EINVAL.
>
>
>>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
>>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
>>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
>>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
>>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
>>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
>>>>
>>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
>>>>
>>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
>>>>
>>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
>>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
>> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
>> 20MHz once and only once.
>>
>> After the first:
>>
>>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
>>
>> ... happens, the first comparison:
>>
>>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
>>
>> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
>> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
>>
> When the request is resent, the card_clock will be still set to
> UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR,
> so card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR will be always true.
> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
> and the card_clock will be changed to UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
> dma_error_count * 20000000.
> I have tested the code, the finally clock will be reduced step by step
> with the increase of dma_error_count.
>
> steven feng
> Realsil Microelectronics CO. LTD.
> Mobile：181-6899-0403  Ext：57594
>
> On 2017年04月10日 23:00, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 冯伟linux wrote:
>>
>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
>>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>>>>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/mfd/rtsx_pci.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/mmc/card.h>
>>>> Why is this required?
>>>>
>>> The UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR which is in "card_clock = UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR
>>>  - (pcr->dma_error_count *20000000)" is defined in linux/mmc/card.h, so
>>> it is required.
>> Okay.
>>
>>>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcr->lock, flags);
>>>> -	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL)
>>>> -		err = -EINVAL;
>>>> +	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL) {
>>>> +		err = -EILSEQ;
>>>> "Illegal byte sequence", really?
>>>>
>>> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
>> You need to explain why.
>>
>>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
>>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
>>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
>>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
>>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
>>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
>>>>
>>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
>>>>
>>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
>>>>
>>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
>>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
>> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
>> 20MHz once and only once.
>>
>> After the first:
>>
>>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
>>
>> ... happens, the first comparison:
>>
>>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
>>
>> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
>> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1630457

FromLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date2017-04-25 14:30 +0200
Message-ID<tA7Ls-4EF-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1630284
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, 冯伟linux wrote:

> Hi Lee Jones:
>     I send this email mainly for the fllowing two things;
>     1.Is there anything unclear about the patch "mfd:rtsx: do retry when
> dma transfer error"
>     2.Whether the pach I submitted in email "[PATCH v4] mfd:rtsx: do
> retry when DMA transfer error"
>         will be merged?

[PATCH 4] did not hit my inbox.

Please resend it.

> steven feng
> Realsil Microelectronics CO. LTD.
> Mobile：181-6899-0403  Ext：57594
> 
> On 2017年04月11日 11:39, 冯伟linux wrote:
> >> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
> >> You need to explain why.
> >>
> > When DMA transfer error with -EILSEQ, the request will retry some times,
> > but when with errno -EINVAL, the request will be aborted directly.
> > At the same time the DMA transfer error truely beacuse of the Illegal
> > byte sequence,
> > so -EILSEQ is used to instead of -EINVAL.
> >
> >
> >>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
> >>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
> >>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
> >>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
> >>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
> >>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
> >>>>
> >>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
> >>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
> >> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
> >> 20MHz once and only once.
> >>
> >> After the first:
> >>
> >>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
> >>
> >> ... happens, the first comparison:
> >>
> >>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
> >>
> >> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
> >> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
> >>
> > When the request is resent, the card_clock will be still set to
> > UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR,
> > so card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR will be always true.
> > The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
> > and the card_clock will be changed to UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
> > dma_error_count * 20000000.
> > I have tested the code, the finally clock will be reduced step by step
> > with the increase of dma_error_count.
> >
> > steven feng
> > Realsil Microelectronics CO. LTD.
> > Mobile：181-6899-0403  Ext：57594
> >
> > On 2017年04月10日 23:00, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, 冯伟linux wrote:
> >>
> >>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> >>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >>>>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>>>  #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> >>>>  #include <linux/mfd/rtsx_pci.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/mmc/card.h>
> >>>> Why is this required?
> >>>>
> >>> The UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR which is in "card_clock = UHS_SER104_MAX_DTR
> >>>  - (pcr->dma_error_count *20000000)" is defined in linux/mmc/card.h, so
> >>> it is required.
> >> Okay.
> >>
> >>>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcr->lock, flags);
> >>>> -	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL)
> >>>> -		err = -EINVAL;
> >>>> +	if (pcr->trans_result == TRANS_RESULT_FAIL) {
> >>>> +		err = -EILSEQ;
> >>>> "Illegal byte sequence", really?
> >>>>
> >>> This errno need to be -EILSEQ.
> >> You need to explain why.
> >>
> >>>>>> +	if (card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR &&
> >>>>>> +		pcr->dma_error_count &&
> >>>>>> +		PCI_PID(pcr) == RTS5227_DEVICE_ID)
> >>>>>> +		card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR -
> >>>>>> +			pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000);
> >>>> ... but won't this only reduce the clock frequency just once?
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no point bracketing the whole statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you do need to bracket one (the second) section of it.
> >>>>
> >>> The times of DMA transfer error occurrs recorded in dma_error_count,
> >>> When DMA transfer error occurrs, the card_clock is reduced by 20MHz.
> >> I think you'll find this logic will only reduce the clock frequency by
> >> 20MHz once and only once.
> >>
> >> After the first:
> >>
> >>   card_clock = (UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR - pcr->dma_error_count * 20000000)
> >>
> >> ... happens, the first comparison:
> >>
> >>   card_clock == UHS_SDR104_MAX_DTR
> >>
> >> ... will fail on subsequent attempts and will not allow it to be
> >> reduced any further.  Did you test it?
> >>
> 

> begin:vcard
> fn;quoted-printable:=E5=86=AF=E4=BC=9F
> n;quoted-printable:;=E5=86=AF=E4=BC=9F
> email;internet:steven_feng@realsil.com.cn
> tel;cell:18168990403
> version:2.1
> end:vcard
> 


-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web