On 03/13/2013 02:26 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 13 2013, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra lo
On 03/13/2013 02:22 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
>> will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
>> we used to
ired data length or not.
The patch was tested against mmc_test and all the tests passed.
Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras
Cc: Seungwon Jeon
Cc: Jaehoon Chung
Cc: Chris Ball
---
The patch is based on Chris Ball's mmc-next branch
drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 33 --
Previously, it was possible to add either 0 bytes or add nbytes
twice if we broke out of the outer loop and then carry on to the
"done" label. This is now fixed by adding the transferred bytes
right after the pull/pop operation
Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras
Cc: Seungwon Jeon
Cc: Jae
There is no reason to loop when handling an interrupt. The "if" clauses
will handle all of them sequentially. This also eliminates the extra loop
we used to take with no pending interrupts and we ended up breaking out
of the while loop.
Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras
Cc: Seungwo
