Hello. On 02/15/2015 05:46 PM, Yoshihiro Kaneko wrote:
From: Kouichi Tomita <kouichi.tomita.yn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
A command end interrupt should not be processed between command issue and setting of wait_for flag. It expects already the flag to be set. Therefore the exclusive control was added.
Signed-off-by: Kouichi Tomita <kouichi.tomita.yn@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@xxxxxxxxx> ---
This patch is based on next branch of Chris Ball's mmc tree.
drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c index 7d9d6a3..e5d0b42 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sh_mmcif.c
[...]
@@ -1171,6 +1174,12 @@ static irqreturn_t sh_mmcif_irqt(int irq, void *dev_id) struct sh_mmcif_host *host = dev_id; struct mmc_request *mrq; bool wait = false; + unsigned long flags; + int wait_work; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); + wait_work = host->wait_for; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
Locking don't seem to have much sense here, as the read is already atomic. WBR, Sergei -- 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
