There are places where tx_complete callbacks are called with
claiming the sdio function. It is not necessary to hold the
sdio func for longer. This may even affect the host side power
save, if it is supported by the controller.
Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/sdio.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
V2 -- Commit log change
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/sdio.c
index 2dd7a88..7695c29 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/sdio.c
@@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ static int ath6kl_sdio_io(struct sdio_func *func, u32 request, u32 addr,
{
int ret = 0;
+ sdio_claim_host(func);
+
if (request & HIF_WRITE) {
/* FIXME: looks like ugly workaround for something */
if (addr >= HIF_MBOX_BASE_ADDR &&
@@ -155,6 +157,8 @@ static int ath6kl_sdio_io(struct sdio_func *func, u32 request, u32 addr,
ret = sdio_memcpy_fromio(func, buf, addr, len);
}
+ sdio_release_host(func);
+
ath6kl_dbg(ATH6KL_DBG_SDIO, "%s addr 0x%x%s buf 0x%p len %d\n",
request & HIF_WRITE ? "wr" : "rd", addr,
request & HIF_FIXED_ADDRESS ? " (fixed)" : "", buf, len);
@@ -287,10 +291,14 @@ static int ath6kl_sdio_scat_rw(struct ath6kl_sdio *ar_sdio,
mmc_req.cmd = &cmd;
mmc_req.data = &data;
+ sdio_claim_host(ar_sdio->func);
+
mmc_set_data_timeout(&data, ar_sdio->func->card);
/* synchronous call to process request */
mmc_wait_for_req(ar_sdio->func->card->host, &mmc_req);
+ sdio_release_host(ar_sdio->func);
+
status = cmd.error ? cmd.error : data.error;
scat_complete:
@@ -391,11 +399,9 @@ static int ath6kl_sdio_read_write_sync(struct ath6kl *ar, u32 addr, u8 *buf,
} else
tbuf = buf;
- sdio_claim_host(ar_sdio->func);
ret = ath6kl_sdio_io(ar_sdio->func, request, addr, tbuf, len);
if ((request & HIF_READ) && bounced)
memcpy(buf, tbuf, len);
- sdio_release_host(ar_sdio->func);
return ret;
}
@@ -424,7 +430,6 @@ static void ath6kl_sdio_write_async_work(struct work_struct *work)
struct bus_request *req, *tmp_req;
ar_sdio = container_of(work, struct ath6kl_sdio, wr_async_work);
- sdio_claim_host(ar_sdio->func);
spin_lock_bh(&ar_sdio->wr_async_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp_req, &ar_sdio->wr_asyncq, list) {
@@ -434,8 +439,6 @@ static void ath6kl_sdio_write_async_work(struct work_struct *work)
spin_lock_bh(&ar_sdio->wr_async_lock);
}
spin_unlock_bh(&ar_sdio->wr_async_lock);
-
- sdio_release_host(ar_sdio->func);
}
static void ath6kl_sdio_irq_handler(struct sdio_func *func)
@@ -618,11 +621,9 @@ static int ath6kl_sdio_async_rw_scatter(struct ath6kl *ar,
"hif-scatter: total len: %d scatter entries: %d\n",
scat_req->len, scat_req->scat_entries);
- if (request & HIF_SYNCHRONOUS) {
- sdio_claim_host(ar_sdio->func);
+ if (request & HIF_SYNCHRONOUS)
status = ath6kl_sdio_scat_rw(ar_sdio, scat_req->busrequest);
- sdio_release_host(ar_sdio->func);
- } else {
+ else {
spin_lock_bh(&ar_sdio->wr_async_lock);
list_add_tail(&scat_req->busrequest->list, &ar_sdio->wr_asyncq);
spin_unlock_bh(&ar_sdio->wr_async_lock);
--
1.7.0.4
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:10:40PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 07:16 PM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> > There are places where tx_complete callbacks are called with
> > claiming the sdio function. It is not necessary to hold the
> > sdio func for longer. This may even affect the host side power
> > save, if it is supported by the controller.
>
> Applied, thanks.
>
> But in the future, please resend the whole patchset even when you modify
> just one patch. Resending invidividual patches from a patchset is error
> prone and most likely I will apply the wrong patch.
Sure, thanks.
Vasanth
On 09/30/2011 07:16 PM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> There are places where tx_complete callbacks are called with
> claiming the sdio function. It is not necessary to hold the
> sdio func for longer. This may even affect the host side power
> save, if it is supported by the controller.
Applied, thanks.
But in the future, please resend the whole patchset even when you modify
just one patch. Resending invidividual patches from a patchset is error
prone and most likely I will apply the wrong patch.
Kalle