From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zhangfei Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: fix dw_mci_get_cd Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:10:03 +0800 Message-ID: <52D67A9B.4090607@linaro.org> References: <1389770159-21125-1-git-send-email-zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> <1389780469-32633-1-git-send-email-zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> <001701cf11e9$25b5fe50$7121faf0$%jun@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:33953 "EHLO mail-pb0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751889AbaAOMKL (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:10:11 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id un15so1055314pbc.13 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:10:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <001701cf11e9$25b5fe50$7121faf0$%jun@samsung.com> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Seungwon Jeon , 'Kevin Hilman' , 'Sachin Kamat' , 'Chris Ball' , 'Arnd Bergmann' , 'Mike Turquette' , 'Jaehoon Chung' Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org On 01/15/2014 07:58 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote: > On Wed, January 15, 2014, Zhangfei Gao wrote: >> Introduced from commit bf626e5550f24aec24975a0e85ad8e572ca76a6b >> CDETECT is ignored since negated return value of mmc_gpio_get_cd(mmc) >> can not be checked by IS_ERR_VALUE. >> Add spin_lock_bh(&host->lock) for atomic accessing DW_MMC_CARD_PRESENT, >> otherwise sd detect may occasionally fail. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao >> Reported-by: Kevin Hilman >> Reviewed-by: Sachin Kamat >> Tested-by: Sachin Kamat >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 9 ++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> index a776f24f4311..9ded62c8225e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> @@ -1033,7 +1033,8 @@ static int dw_mci_get_cd(struct mmc_host *mmc) >> int present; >> struct dw_mci_slot *slot = mmc_priv(mmc); >> struct dw_mci_board *brd = slot->host->pdata; >> - int gpio_cd = !mmc_gpio_get_cd(mmc); >> + struct dw_mci *host = slot->host; >> + int gpio_cd = mmc_gpio_get_cd(mmc); >> >> /* Use platform get_cd function, else try onboard card detect */ >> if (brd->quirks & DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION) >> @@ -1041,11 +1042,12 @@ static int dw_mci_get_cd(struct mmc_host *mmc) >> else if (brd->get_cd) >> present = !brd->get_cd(slot->id); >> else if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(gpio_cd)) >> - present = !!gpio_cd; >> + present = !gpio_cd; > !!gpio_cd or gpio_cd is correct, isn't it? > No, mmc_gpio_get_cd(mmc) has to revert. !!gpio_cd is used before since gpio_cd = !mmc_gpio_get_cd(mmc) is used before. Thanks