From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: mmc_rescan failure in case of CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:22:05 +0000 Message-ID: <20110212172205.GA9608@void.printf.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:39608 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751530Ab1BLRWH (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:22:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Shmidt Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi Dmitry, On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 12:33:33AM +0000, Dmitry Shmidt wrote: > Recently new check was added to core.c function mmc_rescan(): > if (host->bus_ops && host->bus_ops->detect && !host->bus_dead > && mmc_card_is_removable(host)) <<<< This one > host->bus_ops->detect(host); > mmc_card_is_removable() is checking > !(host->caps & MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE) && mmc_assume_removable; > > If we use CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME then > mmc_assume_removable will be 0 and any card will be always considered > as non-removable. And host->bus_ops->detect() will not be called on card > removal. I agree that we've changed the behavior to avoid running ->detect in this case, but that was intentional -- you should not be using CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME on a card that is physically removable. Why are you trying to? config MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME bool "Assume MMC/SD cards are non-removable (DANGEROUS)" ... Thanks, -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child