All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>,
	Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@gmail.com>,
	Eyal Reizer <eyalreizer@gmail.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmc: core: Drop check for mmc_card_is_removable() in mmc_rescan()
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:13:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wh3bnvNu-_1cXf1xT44-EwomoZEWDt88PZzhUVCn9PcQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191017135739.1315-2-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:57 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Upfront in mmc_rescan() we use the host->rescan_entered flag, to allow
> scanning only once for non-removable cards. Therefore, it's also not
> possible that we can have bus attached, when we are scanning non-removable
> cards. For this reason, let' drop the check for mmc_card_is_removable() as
> it's redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index 221127324709..6f8342702c73 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -2297,11 +2297,8 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work)
>
>         mmc_bus_get(host);
>
> -       /*
> -        * if there is a _removable_ card registered, check whether it is
> -        * still present
> -        */
> -       if (host->bus_ops && !host->bus_dead && mmc_card_is_removable(host))
> +       /* Verify a registered card to be functional, else remove it. */
> +       if (host->bus_ops && !host->bus_dead)
>                 host->bus_ops->detect(host);

At first I thought this was a bit more of a change than your
description makes it sound like.  Specifically it seemed like
non-removable cards used to never call host->bus_ops->detect() here
(even during the first call to mmc_rescan) but now they would call it
the first time through.

...so I put in a bunch of printouts.  It appears that the first time
through mmc_rescan() host->bus_ops is NULL.

...ah, and this is what that sentence in your description means about
having a bus attached.  Now I get it!  :-)

...so, right, this looks fine.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Doug Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux MMC List
	<linux-mmc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Adrian Hunter
	<adrian.hunter-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony-4v6yS6AI5VpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Wen Gong <wgong-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Erik Stromdahl
	<erik.stromdahl-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Eyal Reizer <eyalreizer-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-wireless
	<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmc: core: Drop check for mmc_card_is_removable() in mmc_rescan()
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:13:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wh3bnvNu-_1cXf1xT44-EwomoZEWDt88PZzhUVCn9PcQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191017135739.1315-2-ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:57 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Upfront in mmc_rescan() we use the host->rescan_entered flag, to allow
> scanning only once for non-removable cards. Therefore, it's also not
> possible that we can have bus attached, when we are scanning non-removable
> cards. For this reason, let' drop the check for mmc_card_is_removable() as
> it's redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index 221127324709..6f8342702c73 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -2297,11 +2297,8 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work)
>
>         mmc_bus_get(host);
>
> -       /*
> -        * if there is a _removable_ card registered, check whether it is
> -        * still present
> -        */
> -       if (host->bus_ops && !host->bus_dead && mmc_card_is_removable(host))
> +       /* Verify a registered card to be functional, else remove it. */
> +       if (host->bus_ops && !host->bus_dead)
>                 host->bus_ops->detect(host);

At first I thought this was a bit more of a change than your
description makes it sound like.  Specifically it seemed like
non-removable cards used to never call host->bus_ops->detect() here
(even during the first call to mmc_rescan) but now they would call it
the first time through.

...so I put in a bunch of printouts.  It appears that the first time
through mmc_rescan() host->bus_ops is NULL.

...ah, and this is what that sentence in your description means about
having a bus attached.  Now I get it!  :-)

...so, right, this looks fine.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-21 22:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-17 13:57 [PATCH 0/2] mmc: core: Fixup HW reset for SDIO cards Ulf Hansson
2019-10-17 13:57 ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-17 13:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] mmc: core: Drop check for mmc_card_is_removable() in mmc_rescan() Ulf Hansson
2019-10-17 13:57   ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-21 22:13   ` Doug Anderson [this message]
2019-10-21 22:13     ` Doug Anderson
2019-10-22  6:19     ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-22  6:19       ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-17 13:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] mmc: core: Re-work HW reset for SDIO cards Ulf Hansson
2019-10-17 13:57   ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-21 22:13   ` Doug Anderson
2019-10-21 22:13     ` Doug Anderson
2019-10-22  6:51     ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-22  6:51       ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-22 14:47       ` Doug Anderson
2019-10-22 14:47         ` Doug Anderson
2019-10-23 15:06         ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-23 15:06           ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-25 14:16           ` Ulf Hansson
2019-10-25 14:16             ` 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='CAD=FV=Wh3bnvNu-_1cXf1xT44-EwomoZEWDt88PZzhUVCn9PcQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=erik.stromdahl@gmail.com \
    --cc=eyalreizer@gmail.com \
    --cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mka@chromium.org \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=wgong@codeaurora.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.