Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1 2/4] mmc: sdhci-msm: Enable MMC_CAP_NEED_RSP_BUSY host capability | From | Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <> | Date | Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:18:43 +0530 |
| |
Hi Ulf,
On 4/16/2020 5:46 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 17:54, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti > <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> sdhci-msm controller requires the R1B response for commands that >> has this response associated with them. >> >> So enable MMC_CAP_NEED_RSP_BUSY capability. > I assume this potentially should be considered as fix and tagged for stable? Yes Stable flag can be applied to this.
Patch with MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY cap also needed besides this. Shall I push V2 with stable flag?
> Another question, if there is there an upper limit of the busy timeout > in the HW (cmd->busy_timeout) or does the driver use a software > timeout that is adjustable?
The max supported h.w busy timeout value on qcom h/w 21sec.
> Kind regards > Uffe > >> Signed-off-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> index 013dcea..d826e9b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> @@ -2088,6 +2088,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> msm_host->mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY; >> + msm_host->mmc->caps |= MMC_CAP_NEED_RSP_BUSY; >> >> pm_runtime_get_noresume(&pdev->dev); >> pm_runtime_set_active(&pdev->dev); >> -- >> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc., is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |