Hi Doug.
Nice catch.
On 15/10/13 23:39, Doug Anderson wrote:
> We're running into cases where our enabling of the SDIO interrupt in
> dw_mmc doesn't actually take effect. Specifically, adding patch like
> this:
>
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> @@ -1076,6 +1076,9 @@ static void dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq(struct mmc_host
> *mmc, int enb)
>
> mci_writel(host, INTMASK,
> (int_mask | SDMMC_INT_SDIO(slot->id)));
> + int_mask = mci_readl(host, INTMASK);
> + if (!(int_mask & SDMMC_INT_SDIO(slot->id)))
> + dev_err(&mmc->class_dev, "failed to enable sdio irq\n");
> } else {
>
> ...actually triggers the error message. That's because the
> dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq() unsafely does a read-modify-write of the
> INTMASK register.
>
> We can't just use the standard host->lock since that lock is not irq
> safe and mmc_signal_sdio_irq() (called from interrupt context) calls
> dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq(). Add a new irq-safe lock to protect INTMASK.
>
> An alternate solution to this is to punt mmc_signal_sdio_irq() to the
> tasklet and then protect INTMASK modifications by the standard host
> lock. This seemed like a bit more of a high-latency change.
A probably lighter-weight alternative to that alternative is to just
make the existing lock irq safe. Has this been considered?
I'm not entirely convinced it's worth having a separate lock rather than
changing the existing one, but the patch still appears to be correct, so:
Reviewed-by: James Hogan <james.ho...@imgtec.com>
Cheers
James
--
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
