Re: [RFC] dw_mmc: didn't support multiple blocks of weird length?

[Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>]

Will Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Will Newton wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> Right...maybe not problem merging those two functions.
>>>> But think not use list_add_tail(&slot->queue_node, &host->queue)..
>>>>
>>>> I want to know when use list_add_tail functions..in this code.
>>> I think that code is from the original NXP driver and appears to be
>>> used to support multiple slots attached to the same block (so you can
>>> be asked to process a request for slot A while the block is busy
>>> processing an earlier request for slot B). I don't have any hardware
>>> setup like this, everything I have has only a single slot so I don't
>>> believe I have ever seen that branch of the conditional execute.
>> Oh..i also used only single slot..i want to remove spinlock_bh()..
>> because if we used a only single slot, i think that spinlock_bh() not need..
>> how think about this?
> 
> I'm not convinced that removing the multiple slot functionality will
> allow you to remove the spin_lock_bh, it looks like the lock may be
> protecting more than just the queue. Why do you want to remove the
> spinlock?

I should not remove the spin_lock_bh in using multiple slot.
If i use only one slot, i asked that need spin_lock_bh()?
I think if we assume using one slot,need not them..(using quirks instead of removing them)

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>