On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:33:34 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, the patch itself isn't really adequate; it was just a first pass
> intended to illustrate the nature of the problem.
>
> The problems in the MMC subsystem go deeper.
>
> The first is the way it uses flush_workqueue(). This is almost always
> a bad function to call, because it introduces unnecessary dependencies.
> cancel_delayed_work_sync() is much better.
>
> But even changing that won't solve the second issue, which is a genuine
> bug. There is a race between detect events and suspend events. The
> mmc_suspend_host() routine starts out by flushing the kmmcd workqueue
> before calling the host's suspend routine. So what happens if another
> detect event occurs in between?
>
The idea is that host drivers shouldn't do that. Once they've called
mmc_suspend_host(), then they shouldn't be poking the MMC core in any
other way. None of this is of course properly documented. :/
> This whole area of synchronization between card insertion, card
> removal, suspend, and resume needs to be thought out better.
> Especially keeping in mind that device registration or unregistration
> during a system sleep is likely to block until the sleep is over.
Trying to keep up with the PM changes is a full time job. For now I've
mostly ignored it as I don't even have time for the other stuff.
Patches welcome.
>
> Lastly, there are some other questions about confusing aspects of the
> subsystem. What's the story with __mmc_claim_host()? Is it really
> nothing more than an abortable mutex_lock()? Why does it ever need to
> be aborted? Why is its second argument an atomic_t instead of a normal
> int?
>
It got that way when SDIO got in. It was needed to make it abortable to
solve a rather nasty deadlock situation. I don't remember the details
right now, but it should be in the LKML archives.
> Why are mmc_detect() and related routines described in comments as
> "Card detection callback from host"? They don't handle card
> _detection_ -- they handle card _removal_.
They handle both.
>
> What's the purpose of the card-counting loop in
> host/omap.c:mmc_omap_switch_handler()? It looks like dead code.
>
I'm not too familiar with that driver, but they've been playing around
with multiplexing several cards into one controller. Might be bits and
pieces of that.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
