On 06/16/2014 08:40 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 16 June 2014 11:09, micky <micky_ch...@realsil.com.cn> wrote:
On 06/16/2014 04:42 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
@@ -36,7 +37,10 @@ struct realtek_pci_sdmmc {
struct rtsx_pcr *pcr;
struct mmc_host *mmc;
struct mmc_request *mrq;
+ struct workqueue_struct *workq;
+#define SDMMC_WORKQ_NAME "rtsx_pci_sdmmc_workq"
+ struct work_struct work;
I am trying to understand why you need a work/workqueue to implement
this feature. Is that really the case?
Could you elaborate on the reasons?
Hi Uffe,
we need return as fast as possible in mmc_host_ops request(ops->request)
callback,
so the mmc core can continue handle next request.
when next request everything is ready, it will wait previous done(if not
done),
then call ops->request().
we can't use atomic context, because we use mutex_lock() to protect
ops->request should never executed in atomic context. Is that your concern?
Yes.
resource, and we have to hold the lock during handle request.
So I use workq, we just queue a work and return in ops->request(),
The mmc core can continue without blocking at ops->request().
Best Regards.
micky.
Kind regards
Uffe
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
