From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaehoon Chung Subject: Re: [RFC] dw_mmc: didn't support multiple blocks of weird length? Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:01:12 +0900 Message-ID: <4D6DB2F8.5090801@samsung.com> References: <4D675BA4.4040006@samsung.com> <4D6B0C11.8080503@samsung.com> <4D6B7F3A.9040905@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]:60681 "EHLO mailout2.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757201Ab1CBDBl (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:01:41 -0500 Received: from epmmp2 (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) by mailout2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-19.01 64bit (built Sep 7 2010)) with ESMTP id <0LHE00DZLTQ1W840@mailout2.samsung.com> for linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:01:13 +0900 (KST) Received: from TNRNDGASPAPP1.tn.corp.samsungelectronics.net ([165.213.149.150]) by mmp2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0LHE002TITQ2KX@mmp2.samsung.com> for linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:01:14 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Will Newton Cc: Jaehoon Chung , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Kyungmin Park , Chris Ball Will Newton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> Will Newton wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jaehoon Chung 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 >