Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1648551070.git.tonyhuang.sunplus@gmail.com>
 <46aad49867912fc57b669fc54fdb28638cccfcd9.1648551070.git.tonyhuang.sunplus@gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0CLA33CTerXJ=bK+myhyHp_utoLnTX-NzMgjeb7icAGg@mail.gmail.com> <7c4b66f7fe4940cba1b0158803767f6e@sphcmbx02.sunplus.com.tw>
In-Reply-To: <7c4b66f7fe4940cba1b0158803767f6e@sphcmbx02.sunplus.com.tw>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:17:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3edkGMyypwchiJjHDvO4ro6RsOvrhUbEDmP1Obs94mXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mmc: Add mmc driver for Sunplus SP7021
To:     =?UTF-8?B?VG9ueSBIdWFuZyDpu4Pmh7fljpo=?= <tony.huang@sunplus.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Tony Huang <tonyhuang.sunplus@gmail.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "lhjeff911@gmail.com" <lhjeff911@gmail.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        =?UTF-8?B?V2VsbHMgTHUg5ZGC6Iqz6aiw?= <wells.lu@sunplus.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TGggS3VvIOmDreWKm+ixqg==?= <lh.Kuo@sunplus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:27 AM Tony Huang 黃懷厚 <tony.huang@sunplus.com> wrote:
> > > +static void spmmc_request(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_request
> > > +*mrq) {
> > > +       struct spmmc_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
> > > +       struct mmc_data *data;
> > > +       struct mmc_command *cmd;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&host->mrq_lock);
> > > +       if (ret)
> > > +               return;
> >
> > I don't think it's valid to just return here when you get a signal. If nothing can
> > handle the signal, doesn't it just hang?
> >
> > It also appears that you don't release the mutex until the tasklet runs, but it is
> > not valid to release a mutex from a different context.
> >
> > You should get a warning about this when running a kernel with lockdep
> > enabled at compile time. Please rework the locking to make this work.
> >
>         Reomve code:
>     ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&host->mrq_lock);
>     if (ret)
>          return;
>
>         Below is my modification:
> .    mutex_lock(&host->mrq_lock);

That addresses the problem with the signal handling, but not the lock
imbalance. Please fix that as well.
> >
> > It's better to use SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/RUNTIME_PM_OPS instead of the
> > SET_ version, then you can remove all the #ifdef checks.
> >
>
>         I use SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS/RUNTIME_PM_OPS.
>         Compile shows error. Error: implicit declaration of function ? ? SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS? ? Did you mean ? ? SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS? ?             [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]

Maybe you are on an old kernel release?

>         I reference other mmc driver.
>         Below is my modification:
>     Compiler is pass.
>
>         #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>         static int spmmc_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
>         {
>                 pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
>
>                 return 0;
>         }

We should fix the other drivers as well. For the moment, just do it
the right way now
instead of copying the #ifdefs.

        Arnd