Hi, On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 3:12 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The sdio_irq_pending flag is used to let host drivers indicate that it has > signaled an IRQ. If that is the case and we only have a single SDIO func > that have claimed an SDIO IRQ, our assumption is that we can avoid reading > the SDIO_CCCR_INTx register and just call the SDIO func irq handler > immediately. This makes sense, but the flag is set/cleared in a somewhat > messy order, let's fix that up according to below. > > First, the flag is currently set in sdio_run_irqs(), which is executed as a > work that was scheduled from sdio_signal_irq(). To make it more implicit > that the host have signaled an IRQ, let's instead immediately set the flag > in sdio_signal_irq(). This also makes the behavior consistent with host > drivers that uses the legacy, mmc_signal_sdio_irq() API. This have no > functional impact, because we don't expect host drivers to call > sdio_signal_irq() until after the work (sdio_run_irqs()) have been executed > anyways. > > Second, currently we never clears the flag when using the sdio_run_irqs() > work, but only when using the sdio_irq_thread(). Let make the behavior s/Let/Let's > consistent, by moving the flag to be cleared inside the common > process_sdio_pending_irqs() function. Additionally, tweak the behavior of > the flag slightly, by avoiding to clear it unless we processed the SDIO > IRQ. The purpose with this at this point, is to keep the information about > whether there have been an SDIO IRQ signaled by the host, so at system > resume we can decide to process it without reading the SDIO_CCCR_INTx > register. > > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Re-wrote changelog. > > --- > drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
