Re: [PATCH] mmc: Add new via-sdmmc host controller driver
From: Pierre Ossman
Date: Sun Jun 14 2009 - 06:55:54 EST
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:52:56 +0800
Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > You need to do the removal as the first step
>
> Thanks, I've fixed this in my tree.
>
> Looking at other drivers, imxmmc seems to get this wrong, too.
>
Quite right. I suppose someone should have a look at that...
> > and you might need to explicitly kill any ongoing requests.
>
> you mean something like the snippet in sdhci.c:
> ======
> if (dead) {
> spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
>
> host->flags |= SDHCI_DEVICE_DEAD;
>
> if (host->mrq) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Controller removed during "
> " transfer!\n", mmc_hostname(host->mmc));
>
> host->mrq->cmd->error = -ENOMEDIUM;
> tasklet_schedule(&host->finish_tasklet);
> }
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
> }
> ======
>
> Why is sdhci about the only driver that does it? What decides if we need
> to kill ongoing requests or not?
>
I guess I haven't kept an eye on it so the others are simply buggy.
> Also, you stated that mmc_remove_host needs to be the first step. However,
> sdhci first kills the ongoing rquest (if "dead"), and then removes the host.
>
Right, because the reason you need to end the request is that failure
to do so will wedge the MMC system and mmc_remove_host() will never
return.
Normally the requests will eventually be completed by interrupts coming
from the hardware, but if it got removed then that might not happen.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
encryption.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature