Hi Masahiro,
On 07/08/2016 07:58 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current timeout detection logic is not very nice; it calls
> get_timer(start) in the while() loop, and then calls it again after
> the loop to check if a timeout error happened.
>
> Because of the time difference between the two calls of get_time(),
> the reason detected after the loop may not be really true.
It makes sense. Looks good to me.
Tested with Exynos boards
Acked-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com>
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> index 604f18d..0a1882d 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
> @@ -243,17 +243,17 @@ static int sdhci_send_command(struct mmc *mmc, struct
> mmc_cmd *cmd,
> stat = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_INT_STATUS);
> if (stat & SDHCI_INT_ERROR)
> break;
> - } while (((stat & mask) != mask) &&
> - (get_timer(start) < SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT));
>
> - if (get_timer(start) >= SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT) {
> - if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_R1B)
> - return 0;
> - else {
> - printf("%s: Timeout for status update!\n", __func__);
> - return TIMEOUT;
> + if (get_timer(start) >= SDHCI_READ_STATUS_TIMEOUT) {
> + if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_R1B) {
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + printf("%s: Timeout for status update!\n",
> + __func__);
> + return TIMEOUT;
> + }
> }
> - }
> + } while ((stat & mask) != mask);
>
> if ((stat & (SDHCI_INT_ERROR | mask)) == mask) {
> sdhci_cmd_done(host, cmd);
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
