On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 18:10, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 29/10/19 7:43 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > When using the host software queue, it will trigger the next request in
> > irq handler without a context switch. But the sdhci_request() can not be
> > called in interrupt context when using host software queue for some host
> > drivers, due to the get_cd() ops can be sleepable.
> >
> > But for some host drivers, such as Spreadtrum host driver, the card is
> > nonremovable, so the get_cd() ops is not sleepable, which means we can
> > complete the data request and trigger the next request in irq handler
> > to remove the context switch for the Spreadtrum host driver.
> >
> > Thus we still need introduce a variable in struct sdhci_host to indicate
> > that we will always to defer to complete data requests if the sdhci_request()
> > can not be called in interrupt context for some host drivers, when using
> > the host software queue.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > index 850241f..9cf2130 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > @@ -3035,7 +3035,7 @@ static inline bool sdhci_defer_done(struct sdhci_host *host,
> > {
> > struct mmc_data *data = mrq->data;
> >
> > - return host->pending_reset ||
> > + return host->pending_reset || (host->always_defer_done && data) ||
>
> I didn't realize you still wanted to call the request function in interrupt
> context. In my view that needs a new host API
> i.e. int (*request_atomic)(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request *mrq)
Actually there are no documentation said that the
mmc_host_ops->request() is a sleepable API, so I introduce a
host->always_defer_done flag to decide if the request can be called in
interrupt context or not, since for some host drivers, the request()
implementation can be called in interrupt context.
Yes, I agree a new host API is more reasonable, if you do not like the
current approach, I can add new patches to introduce the new
request_atomic() API. But can I create another separate patch set to
do this? since in this patch set, the Spreadtrum host driver's
request() implementation can be called in interrupt context. Or you
still want these changes introducing new request_atomic() can be done
in this patch set? Thanks.
>
> > ((host->flags & SDHCI_REQ_USE_DMA) && data &&
> > data->host_cookie == COOKIE_MAPPED);
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
> > index d89cdb9..38fbd18 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h
> > @@ -533,6 +533,7 @@ struct sdhci_host {
> > bool pending_reset; /* Cmd/data reset is pending */
> > bool irq_wake_enabled; /* IRQ wakeup is enabled */
> > bool v4_mode; /* Host Version 4 Enable */
> > + bool always_defer_done; /* Always defer to complete data requests */
> >
> > struct mmc_request *mrqs_done[SDHCI_MAX_MRQS]; /* Requests done */
> > struct mmc_command *cmd; /* Current command */
> >
>
--
Baolin Wang
Best Regards
