From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:55:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] MMC: sdhci-dove: allow GPIOs to be used for card detection on Dove In-Reply-To: <20121123121422.GA26168@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> References: <20121122235426.GT3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121123083117.GA25754@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20121123085726.GK5764@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121123121422.GA26168@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20121123125507.GO5764@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 08:14:27PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 08:57:26AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Does this work with the sdhci stuff? > > Honestly, I'm not sure, but I guess it does, since I have seen > sdhci-pxav3 driver using the helpers. Anyway, I'm going to adopt > the helpers for sdhci-esdhc-imx driver to find it out. The thing that worries me is this: static void sdhci_tasklet_card(unsigned long param) { ... /* Check host->mrq first in case we are runtime suspended */ if (host->mrq && !(sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) & SDHCI_CARD_PRESENT)) { pr_err("%s: Card removed during transfer!\n", mmc_hostname(host->mmc)); pr_err("%s: Resetting controller.\n", mmc_hostname(host->mmc)); sdhci_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_CMD); sdhci_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_DATA); host->mrq->cmd->error = -ENOMEDIUM; tasklet_schedule(&host->finish_tasklet); } ... mmc_detect_change(host->mmc, msecs_to_jiffies(200)); } That gets called whenever a card is inserted/removed by the SDHCI code (if the SDHCI card detect is wired), or in my case by the interrupt routine the code in my patch adds. The slot-gpio.c stuff directly calls into mmc_detect_change (a) with a shorter delay, and (b) completely omits the above handling and resetting. My guess from the above code is that it'll work fine 90% of the time (because you'll remove the card without an active request), but the above code looks like it's addressing a corner case which will be omitted with the "generic" slot-gpio.c solution. So I don't think it's a good idea to use slot-gpio.c in this case.