From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mirqus@gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Miros=B3aw?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:41:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: MXC: mxcmmc: Teach the driver SDIO operations In-Reply-To: <20100331132946.GH30807@buzzloop.caiaq.de> References: <1269973921-29611-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <1269973921-29611-2-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <20100331130339.GX2241@pengutronix.de> <20100331132946.GH30807@buzzloop.caiaq.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 2010/3/31 Daniel Mack : > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:03:39PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:32:00PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> > +static void mxcmci_enable_sdio_irq(struct mmc_host *mmc, int enable) >> > +{ >> > + ? struct mxcmci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); >> > + ? unsigned long flags; >> > + ? u32 int_cntr; >> > + >> > + ? spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> > + ? host->use_sdio = enable; >> > + ? int_cntr = readl(host->base + MMC_REG_INT_CNTR); >> > + >> > + ? if (enable) >> > + ? ? ? ? ? int_cntr |= INT_SDIO_IRQ_EN; >> > + ? else >> > + ? ? ? ? ? int_cntr &= ~INT_SDIO_IRQ_EN; >> > + >> > + ? writel(int_cntr, host->base + MMC_REG_INT_CNTR); >> > + ? spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> >> The other places where MMC_REG_INT_CNTR is touched should be protected >> by this spinlock aswell. > Hmm, all other place don't do a read/modify/write cycle, so I'd say the > don't need protection? If you miss spinlocks around the unconditional writes they might happen between your readl() and writel(). Best Regards, Micha? Miros?aw