From: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
To: Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com>
Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>,
"linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] dw_mmc: didn't support multiple blocks of weird length?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:01:12 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D6DB2F8.5090801@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin32J=VAZXQfxYL4wME4Z4uBO=fKHRgHWBnZ=n+@mail.gmail.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
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-02 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-25 7:35 [RFC] dw_mmc: didn't support multiple blocks of weird length? Jaehoon Chung
2011-02-25 17:55 ` Will Newton
2011-02-28 2:44 ` Jaehoon Chung
2011-02-28 10:45 ` Will Newton
2011-02-28 10:55 ` Jaehoon Chung
2011-02-28 12:48 ` Will Newton
2011-03-02 3:01 ` Jaehoon Chung [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D6DB2F8.5090801@samsung.com \
--to=jh80.chung@samsung.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will.newton@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox