Philip, > > And, more important, you will do cond_resched while holding you > > spinlock, which is *bad*. > > What if the mmc stack will call you again from another thread? deadlock...
> Assumptions -- Please Confirm > ------------------------------------------- No need to do assumptions, schedule while holding spinlocks is bad, your kernel will oops with something like: BUG: scheduling while in atomic. > >> @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static void sdhci_set_power(struct sdhci_host *host, > >> unsigned short power) > >> * can apply clock after applying power > >> */ > >> if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_DELAY_AFTER_POWER) > >> - mdelay(10); > >> + mmc_delay(10); > > Do you need this quirk in your platform? > > No Then, you dont have any mdelay in your set_ios, and you are trying to optimize something that never happen. Pierre --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company) Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris, 92196 Meudon Cedex, France Registration Number: 302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE Capital: 4,572,000 Euros This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
