From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>,
Per FORLIN <per.forlin@stericsson.com>,
Johan RUDHOLM <johan.rudholm@stericsson.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: core: Force a "detect" to handle non-properly removed cards
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:02:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F0AC942.4060404@stericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F04C412.1030604@intel.com>
Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 3/01/2012 12:33 p.m., Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> Removing a card "slowly" can trigger a GPIO irq to be raised far
>> before the card is actually removed. This means the scheduled
>> detect work will not find out that the card were removed and thus
>> the card and the block device will not be unregistered.
>
> One way around that problem is to error out requests after the GPIO
> indicates the card is "removed". sdhci effectively does that but with
> a "present" bit. Perhaps even simpler - set the card-removed flag.
I get the idea, but that will only partly solve this issue.
My concern is more about what we actually can trust; either the GPIO irq
which likely is giving more than one irq when inserting/removing a card
since the slot is probably not glitch free, or that a "rescan" runs to
make sure a CMD13 is accepted from the previously inserted card.
Moreover, the issue this patch tries to solve can not be solved without
doing a "rescan" which must be triggered from the the block layer some
how. I thought this new function that you previously added
"mmc_detect_card_remove" was the proper place to do this.
>
>> Let the mmc_detect_card_removed function trigger a new detect
>> work immediately when it discovers that a card has been removed.
>
> This is changing some long-standing functionality i.e. the card is not
> removed
> without a card detect event. It is difficult to know whether that will
> be very
> bad for poor quality cards,
Doing a mmc_detect (rescan) will in the end just issue a CMD13 to the
card to make sure it is still present, that is already done from the
block layer after each read/write request. So I can not see that "poor
quality cards" will have any further problem with this patch, but I
might miss something!?
>
>> This will solve the described issue above. Moreover we make sure
>> the detect work is executed as soon as possible, since there is
>> no reason for waiting for a "delayed" detect to happen.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson<ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
>> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 1 -
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> index 4770807..7bc02f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> @@ -1462,7 +1462,6 @@ void mmc_detect_change(struct mmc_host *host, unsigned long delay)
>> WARN_ON(host->removed);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
>> #endif
>> - host->detect_change = 1;
>> mmc_schedule_delayed_work(&host->detect, delay);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2077,18 +2076,23 @@ int _mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host)
>> int mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host)
>> {
>> struct mmc_card *card = host->card;
>> + int ret = 1;
>>
>> WARN_ON(!host->claimed);
>> - /*
>> - * The card will be considered unchanged unless we have been asked to
>> - * detect a change or host requires polling to provide card detection.
>> - */
>> - if (card&& !host->detect_change&& !(host->caps& MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL))
>> - return mmc_card_removed(card);
>>
>> - host->detect_change = 0;
>> + if (card&& !mmc_card_removed(card)) {
>> + if (_mmc_detect_card_removed(host)) {
>> + /*
>> + * Make sure a detect work is always executed and also
>> + * do it as soon as possible.
>> + */
>> + cancel_delayed_work(&host->detect);
>> + mmc_detect_change(host, 0);
>> + }
>> + ret = mmc_card_removed(card);
>> + }
>>
>> - return _mmc_detect_card_removed(host);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_detect_card_removed);
>>
>> @@ -2112,8 +2116,6 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work)
>> && !(host->caps& MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE))
>> host->bus_ops->detect(host);
>>
>> - host->detect_change = 0;
>> -
>> /*
>> * Let mmc_bus_put() free the bus/bus_ops if we've found that
>> * the card is no longer present.
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>> index 031d865..09fa5e6 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
>> @@ -305,7 +305,6 @@ struct mmc_host {
>> int claim_cnt; /* "claim" nesting count */
>>
>> struct delayed_work detect;
>> - int detect_change; /* card detect flag */
>> struct mmc_hotplug hotplug;
>>
>> const struct mmc_bus_ops *bus_ops; /* current bus driver */
>
>
Br
Ulf Hansson
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-09 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-03 10:33 [PATCH] mmc: core: Force a "detect" to handle non-properly removed cards Ulf Hansson
2012-01-04 9:40 ` Linus Walleij
2012-01-04 21:26 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-09 11:02 ` Ulf Hansson [this message]
2012-01-09 12:07 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-09 13:14 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-09 13:53 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-09 14:27 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-10 9:22 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-10 10:59 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-10 12:10 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-13 10:04 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-13 10:43 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-13 11:31 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-13 12:08 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-13 13:14 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-13 13:43 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-13 14:35 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-16 7:45 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-16 11:09 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-10 9:33 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-10 11:03 ` Ulf Hansson
2012-01-10 12:21 ` Adrian Hunter
2012-01-09 14:34 ` Ulf Hansson
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=4F0AC942.4060404@stericsson.com \
--to=ulf.hansson@stericsson.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=johan.rudholm@stericsson.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=per.forlin@stericsson.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).