On 23/02/21 11:32 am, Paul Fertser wrote:

Hello Ulf,

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:23:28AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
index f5dedb7f9b27..9adf735391fa 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c

@@ -426,8 +426,7 @@ static int mmc_decode_ext_csd(struct mmc_card *card, u8 *ext_csd)
                /* EXT_CSD value is in units of 10ms, but we store in ms */
                card->ext_csd.part_time = 10 * ext_csd[EXT_CSD_PART_SWITCH_TIME];
                /* Some eMMC set the value too low so set a minimum */
-               if (card->ext_csd.part_time &&
-                   card->ext_csd.part_time < MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME)
+               if (card->ext_csd.part_time < MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME)
                        card->ext_csd.part_time = MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME;

                /* Sleep / awake timeout in 100ns units */

I do not see any more warnings on my system.

That looks like the correct fix to the problem. Do you want to send a
proper patch that I can pick up or do you prefer if help to do it?

I've sent this as a diff precisely because 1c447116d017 was so
explicit about special-casing zero ext_csd timeout value, so I thought
probably Adrian can provide the rationale for that. I'd prefer to wait
for his feedback before sending a formal patch. Does this make sense?

Zero means indefinite.  Might be safer to use a higher value than
MMC_MIN_PART_SWITCH_TIME for that case.  The maximum GENERIC_CMD6_TIME is
2550 ms.