On 07/11/2012 09:06 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/mxs-mmc.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mxs-mmc.c @@ -278,11 +278,11 @@ static irqreturn_t mxs_mmc_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) writel(stat & MXS_MMC_IRQ_BITS, host->base + HW_SSP_CTRL1(host) + STMP_OFFSET_REG_CLR);+ spin_unlock(&host->lock); + if ((stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_SDIO_IRQ) && (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_SDIO_IRQ_EN)) mmc_signal_sdio_irq(host->mmc); - spin_unlock(&host->lock); - if (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_RESP_TIMEOUT_IRQ) cmd->error = -ETIMEDOUT; else if (stat & BM_SSP_CTRL1_RESP_ERR_IRQ) Is there any reason to keep mmc_signal_sdio_irq inside the spinlock? mmc_signal_sdio_irq calls mxs_mmc_enable_sdio_irq and it tries to acquire lock while it is already acquired.The fix looks right to me. You can have my ack when you send a patch for it. Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn....@linaro.org>
OK, I'll send a patch. Thanks! Lauri -- 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
