On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:27 AM Tony Huang 黃懷厚 <tony.huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static void spmmc_request(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request
> > > +*mrq) {
> > > + struct spmmc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
> > > + struct mmc_data *data;
> > > + struct mmc_command *cmd;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&host->mrq_lock);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return;
> >
> > I don't think it's valid to just return here when you get a signal. If nothing can
> > handle the signal, doesn't it just hang?
> >
> > It also appears that you don't release the mutex until the tasklet runs, but it is
> > not valid to release a mutex from a different context.
> >
> > You should get a warning about this when running a kernel with lockdep
> > enabled at compile time. Please rework the locking to make this work.
> >
> Reomve code:
> ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&host->mrq_lock);
> if (ret)
> return;
>
> Below is my modification:
> . mutex_lock(&host->mrq_lock);
That addresses the problem with the signal handling, but not the lock
imbalance. Please fix that as well.
> >
> > It's better to use SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/RUNTIME_PM_OPS instead of the
> > SET_ version, then you can remove all the #ifdef checks.
> >
>
> I use SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/RUNTIME_PM_OPS.
> Compile shows error. Error: implicit declaration of function ? ? SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS? ? Did you mean ? ? SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS? ? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
Maybe you are on an old kernel release?
> I reference other mmc driver.
> Below is my modification:
> Compiler is pass.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> static int spmmc_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
>
> return 0;
> }
We should fix the other drivers as well. For the moment, just do it
the right way now
instead of copying the #ifdefs.
Arnd
