On 17 September 2018 at 07:30, Jisheng Zhang
<Jisheng.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If hosts provides ops->adma_write_desc, we should not fall back to the
> general sdhci_adma_write_desc().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Hi Ulf, Adrian,
>
> When I introduced .adma_write_desc, I made a mistake since v4 -- if the host
> provide ops->adma_write_desc, we should just call it and don't fall back
> to the general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). Before v4, the adma_write_desc return
> int, since v4 there's no return value, so when I prepared the v4, I just
> removed return, this is where the mistake is from. I dunno how to handle
> this case, fold the patch into previous commit or apply it as a separate patch?
>
> I'm very sorry for this. In fact, Adrian caught another similar bug during
> review.
>
> Sorry about the inconvenience,
> Jisheng
No worries, mistakes happens - the important thing is that we fix them!
Thanks for providing the information above.
I have applied this as is for next.
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> index 0dda6f4b6a24..99bdae53fa2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> @@ -649,8 +649,8 @@ static inline void __sdhci_adma_write_desc(struct sdhci_host *host,
> {
> if (host->ops->adma_write_desc)
> host->ops->adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd);
> -
> - sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd);
> + else
> + sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd);
> }
>
> static void sdhci_adma_mark_end(void *desc)
> --
> 2.19.0
>
