From bae4a1fdf59cddf02acd0070d1da7303fe5ffd0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 00:40:22 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: clean up timeout detection
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_timer(),
the timeout detected after the loop may not be true.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Acked-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.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 9fdbed8..1de1f8e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
@@ -252,17 +252,17 @@ 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);