On 20 September 2012 13:33, Kevin Liu <keyuan.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Ulf
>
> 2012/9/19 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 19 September 2012 05:12, Kevin Liu <keyuan.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Kevin Liu <kliu5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> If host support asynchronous interrupt and sdio device has enabled it,
>>> then enable/disable asynchronous interrupt on host when enable/disable
>>> sdio irq.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Liu <kliu5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> index 0e15c79..f6136e2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -1575,6 +1575,8 @@ static int sdhci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc)
>>>
>>> static void sdhci_enable_sdio_irq_nolock(struct sdhci_host *host, int enable)
>>> {
>>> + u16 ctrl;
>>> +
>>> if (host->flags & SDHCI_DEVICE_DEAD)
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> @@ -1583,6 +1585,16 @@ static void sdhci_enable_sdio_irq_nolock(struct sdhci_host *host, int enable)
>>> else
>>> host->flags &= ~SDHCI_SDIO_IRQ_ENABLED;
>>>
>>> + if ((host->mmc->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_ASYNC_INT) &&
>>> + (host->mmc->card->cccr.async_int)) {
>>
>> It is a quite special card bit value you are checking for. Can you be
>> sure that the cccr struct exist here?
>>
> The bit async_int is added to struct sdio_cccr by my previous patch 0002.
> If EAI is enabled, this bit will be set.
>
>> Maybe it could be a good idea to implement something similar as for
>> example mmc_card_highspeed | mmc_card_set_highspeed functions.
>> Thus add a new card state, which is set accordingly when this bit is
>> set and instead check for this state here. In this case you would not
>> have to check the caps2 here, since that is already done by the
>> protocol layer.
>>
> I think you want to replace the check for host->mmc->card->cccr.async_int with
> mmc_card_xxx, right? It's a good idea.
Correct!
> It's not reasonable to replace caps2 with such function since they are
> for card status
> rather than host.
> How do you think?
I mean in the sdio framework, you already consider the new CAP before
setting cccr.async and thus the "mmc_card_xxx" depend on this CAP as
well. This will mean that the host driver does not need to check the
CAP here, mmc_card_xxx is enough.
Kind regards
Ulf Hansson
--
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
