Re: [RFC] dw_mmc: didn't support multiple blocks of weird length?

Will Newton
2011-02-28T12:48:29Z

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?