Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1583307441.git.baolin.wang7@gmail.com> <ace53bca354e2846f19684bd33a9c0f3c2ee2c44.1583307441.git.baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFp-HvMtEX4F-aumBy93DMn8aPjx8kBm+rCSL316HFPL0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFp-HvMtEX4F-aumBy93DMn8aPjx8kBm+rCSL316HFPL0w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:00:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CADBw62qPEO_iWpf5v3H-_xHCJRJ-6M8Y+jA1TTxPPdJvutCmSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] mmc: host: Introduce the request_atomic() for
 the host
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:48 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 08:42, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The SD host controller can process one request in the atomic context if
> > the card is nonremovable, which means we can submit next request in the
> > irq hard handler when using the MMC software queue to reduce the latency.
> > Thus this patch adds a new API request_atomic() for the host controller
> > and implement it for the SD host controller.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h |  1 +
> >  include/linux/mmc/host.h |  3 +++
> >  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> I think the code split of the changes in the series can be improved a
> bit, so I suggest you move the code around in the series to reach
> this:
>
> 1. A patch that adds the new host ops callback, combined with the
> change you have in patch3.
> 2. The sdhci core specific changes, from $subject patch.
> 3. The sdhci-sprd changes, as in patch2.
>
> Other than that, I think the code looks good to me, besides a minor
> comment on patch2, see separate reply.

Sure. Will do as you suggested. Thanks.

-- 
Baolin Wang