lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: dw_mmc: Protect read-modify-write of INTMASK with a lock
Hi Doug.

Nice catch.

On 15/10/13 23:39, Doug Anderson wrote:
> We're running into cases where our enabling of the SDIO interrupt in
> dw_mmc doesn't actually take effect. Specifically, adding patch like
> this:
>
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> @@ -1076,6 +1076,9 @@ static void dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq(struct mmc_host *mmc, int enb)
>
> mci_writel(host, INTMASK,
> (int_mask | SDMMC_INT_SDIO(slot->id)));
> + int_mask = mci_readl(host, INTMASK);
> + if (!(int_mask & SDMMC_INT_SDIO(slot->id)))
> + dev_err(&mmc->class_dev, "failed to enable sdio irq\n");
> } else {
>
> ...actually triggers the error message. That's because the
> dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq() unsafely does a read-modify-write of the
> INTMASK register.
>
> We can't just use the standard host->lock since that lock is not irq
> safe and mmc_signal_sdio_irq() (called from interrupt context) calls
> dw_mci_enable_sdio_irq(). Add a new irq-safe lock to protect INTMASK.
>
> An alternate solution to this is to punt mmc_signal_sdio_irq() to the
> tasklet and then protect INTMASK modifications by the standard host
> lock. This seemed like a bit more of a high-latency change.

A probably lighter-weight alternative to that alternative is to just
make the existing lock irq safe. Has this been considered?

I'm not entirely convinced it's worth having a separate lock rather than
changing the existing one, but the patch still appears to be correct, so:
Reviewed-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>

Cheers
James



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-16 12:21    [W:0.113 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site