In the (maybe academical) case, we don't get a DATAEND interrupt after
DMA completed, we will wait endlessly for the completion to complete.
This is not bad per se, since we have a more generic completion tracking
a timeout. In that rare case, however, the DMA buffer will not get
unmapped and we have a leak. Reorder the code, so unmapping will always
take place.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
It's probably academical, still I think it is better to not have any leaks in
favor of slightly more lock hazzling. Open for opionions, though, this is why
I send out as RFC.
drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
index c7684fa91f1f9c..e2093db2b7ffce 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
@@ -47,8 +47,6 @@ static void tmio_mmc_dma_callback(void *arg)
{
struct tmio_mmc_host *host = arg;
- wait_for_completion(&host->dma_dataend);
-
spin_lock_irq(&host->lock);
if (!host->data)
@@ -63,6 +61,11 @@ static void tmio_mmc_dma_callback(void *arg)
host->sg_ptr, host->sg_len,
DMA_TO_DEVICE);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&host->lock);
+
+ wait_for_completion(&host->dma_dataend);
+
+ spin_lock_irq(&host->lock);
tmio_mmc_do_data_irq(host);
out:
spin_unlock_irq(&host->lock);
--
2.11.0
