Re: [PATCH V6 3/3] mmc: mmci: sdmmc: add busy_complete callback

[Ulf Hansson]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 14:22, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
>
> This patch adds a specific busy_complete callback for sdmmc variant.
>
> sdmmc has 2 status flags:
> -busyd0: This is a hardware status flag (inverted value of d0 line).
> it does not generate an interrupt.
> -busyd0end: This indicates only end of busy following a CMD response.
> On busy to Not busy changes, an interrupt is generated (if unmask)
> and BUSYD0END status flag is set. Status flag is cleared by writing
> corresponding interrupt clear bit in MMCICLEAR.
>
> The legacy busy completion monitors step by step the busy progression
> start/in-progress/end. On sdmmc variant, the monitoring of busy steps
> is difficult and not adapted (the software can miss a step and locks
> the monitoring), the sdmmc has just need to wait the busyd0end bit
> without monitoring all the changes.

To me it's a bit of the opposite as you describe it above. The legacy
variants suffers from a somewhat broken HW that generates also a
"busystart" IRQ. For the stm32_sdmmc variant, it's more clean/correct
as only a busyend IRQ is raised.

Maybe you can rephrase the above a bit to make that more clear somehow.

>
> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c             |  3 +++
>  drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h             |  1 +
>  drivers/mmc/host/mmci_stm32_sdmmc.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> index e20164f4354d..a666d826dbbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c
> @@ -260,6 +260,9 @@ static struct variant_data variant_stm32_sdmmc = {
>         .datalength_bits        = 25,
>         .datactrl_blocksz       = 14,
>         .stm32_idmabsize_mask   = GENMASK(12, 5),
> +       .busy_timeout           = true,
> +       .busy_detect_flag       = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0,
> +       .busy_detect_mask       = MCI_STM32_BUSYD0ENDMASK,
>         .init                   = sdmmc_variant_init,
>  };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h
> index 733f9a035b06..841c5281beb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h
> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@
>  #define MCI_ST_CARDBUSY                (1 << 24)
>  /* Extended status bits for the STM32 variants */
>  #define MCI_STM32_BUSYD0       BIT(20)
> +#define MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END    BIT(21)
>
>  #define MMCICLEAR              0x038
>  #define MCI_CMDCRCFAILCLR      (1 << 0)
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci_stm32_sdmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci_stm32_sdmmc.c
> index 8e83ae6920ae..bb5499cc9e81 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci_stm32_sdmmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci_stm32_sdmmc.c
> @@ -282,6 +282,43 @@ static u32 sdmmc_get_dctrl_cfg(struct mmci_host *host)
>         return datactrl;
>  }
>
> +bool sdmmc_busy_complete(struct mmci_host *host, u32 status, u32 err_msk)
> +{
> +       void __iomem *base = host->base;
> +       u32 busy_d0, busy_d0end, mask;
> +
> +       mask = readl_relaxed(base + MMCIMASK0);
> +       busy_d0end = readl_relaxed(base + MMCISTATUS) & MCI_STM32_BUSYD0END;
> +       busy_d0 = readl_relaxed(base + MMCISTATUS) & MCI_STM32_BUSYD0;

I have found some potential optimizations, but I leave it to you to
decide what to do with my comments.

*) You could avoid to read registers upfront, if that be skipped
because of checking a known error condition. For example:
"if (!host->busy_status && !(status & err_msk))" - would tell if it's
even worth considering to unmask the busyend IRQ.

**) Reading MMCISTATUS twice in row seems a bit silly, why not read it
once and store its value in a local variable that you operate upon
instead.

> +
> +       /* complete if there is an error or busy_d0end */
> +       if ((status & err_msk) || busy_d0end)
> +               goto complete;

>From here, you may end up writing to MMCIMASK0 and MMCICLEAR, even if
you didn't unmask the busyend IRQ in first place.

> +
> +       /*
> +        * On response the busy signaling is reflected in the BUSYD0 flag.
> +        * if busy_d0 is in-progress we must activate busyd0end interrupt
> +        * to wait this completion. Else this request has no busy step.
> +        */
> +       if (busy_d0) {
> +               if (!host->busy_status) {
> +                       writel_relaxed(mask | host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
> +                                      base + MMCIMASK0);
> +                       host->busy_status = status &
> +                               (MCI_CMDSENT | MCI_CMDRESPEND);
> +               }
> +               return false;
> +       }
> +
> +complete:
> +       writel_relaxed(mask & ~host->variant->busy_detect_mask,
> +                      base + MMCIMASK0);
> +       writel_relaxed(host->variant->busy_detect_mask, base + MMCICLEAR);
> +       host->busy_status = 0;
> +
> +       return true;
> +}
> +
>  static struct mmci_host_ops sdmmc_variant_ops = {
>         .validate_data = sdmmc_idma_validate_data,
>         .prep_data = sdmmc_idma_prep_data,
> @@ -292,6 +329,7 @@ static struct mmci_host_ops sdmmc_variant_ops = {
>         .dma_finalize = sdmmc_idma_finalize,
>         .set_clkreg = mmci_sdmmc_set_clkreg,
>         .set_pwrreg = mmci_sdmmc_set_pwrreg,
> +       .busy_complete = sdmmc_busy_complete,
>  };
>
>  void sdmmc_variant_init(struct mmci_host *host)
> --
> 2.17.1
>

Other than the comments above, which are plain suggestions for
optimizations, the code looks correct to me!

Kind regards
Uffe