On 07/11/2012 09:06 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mxs-mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mxs-mmc.c
@@ -278,11 +278,11 @@ static irqreturn_t mxs_mmc_irq_handler(int
irq, void *dev_id)
writel(stat & MXS_MMC_IRQ_BITS,
host->base + HW_SSP_CTRL1(host) + STMP_OFFSET_REG_CLR);
+ spin_unlock(&host->lock);
+
if ((stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_SDIO_IRQ) && (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_SDIO_IRQ_EN))
mmc_signal_sdio_irq(host->mmc);
- spin_unlock(&host->lock);
-
if (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_RESP_TIMEOUT_IRQ)
cmd->error = -ETIMEDOUT;
else if (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_RESP_ERR_IRQ)
Is there any reason to keep mmc_signal_sdio_irq inside the spinlock?
mmc_signal_sdio_irq calls mxs_mmc_enable_sdio_irq and it tries to
acquire lock while it is already acquired.
The fix looks right to me. You can have my ack when you send a patch
for it.
Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
OK, I'll send a patch. Thanks!
Lauri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
