| Message ID | 20180917133041.66100101@xhacker.debian (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [mmc-next] mmc: sdhci: fix __sdhci_adma_write_desc | expand |
On 17/09/18 08:30, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > If hosts provides ops->adma_write_desc, we should not fall back to the > general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> > --- > > Hi Ulf, Adrian, > > When I introduced .adma_write_desc, I made a mistake since v4 -- if the host > provide ops->adma_write_desc, we should just call it and don't fall back > to the general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). Before v4, the adma_write_desc return > int, since v4 there's no return value, so when I prepared the v4, I just > removed return, this is where the mistake is from. I dunno how to handle > this case, fold the patch into previous commit or apply it as a separate patch? Up to Ulf, but in any case: Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> > > I'm very sorry for this. In fact, Adrian caught another similar bug during > review. > > Sorry about the inconvenience, > Jisheng > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 0dda6f4b6a24..99bdae53fa2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -649,8 +649,8 @@ static inline void __sdhci_adma_write_desc(struct sdhci_host *host, > { > if (host->ops->adma_write_desc) > host->ops->adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > - > - sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > + else > + sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > } > > static void sdhci_adma_mark_end(void *desc) >
On 17 September 2018 at 07:30, Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> wrote: > If hosts provides ops->adma_write_desc, we should not fall back to the > general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> > --- > > Hi Ulf, Adrian, > > When I introduced .adma_write_desc, I made a mistake since v4 -- if the host > provide ops->adma_write_desc, we should just call it and don't fall back > to the general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). Before v4, the adma_write_desc return > int, since v4 there's no return value, so when I prepared the v4, I just > removed return, this is where the mistake is from. I dunno how to handle > this case, fold the patch into previous commit or apply it as a separate patch? > > I'm very sorry for this. In fact, Adrian caught another similar bug during > review. > > Sorry about the inconvenience, > Jisheng No worries, mistakes happens - the important thing is that we fix them! Thanks for providing the information above. I have applied this as is for next. Kind regards Uffe > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 0dda6f4b6a24..99bdae53fa2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -649,8 +649,8 @@ static inline void __sdhci_adma_write_desc(struct sdhci_host *host, > { > if (host->ops->adma_write_desc) > host->ops->adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > - > - sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > + else > + sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); > } > > static void sdhci_adma_mark_end(void *desc) > -- > 2.19.0 >
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c index 0dda6f4b6a24..99bdae53fa2e 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -649,8 +649,8 @@ static inline void __sdhci_adma_write_desc(struct sdhci_host *host, { if (host->ops->adma_write_desc) host->ops->adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); - - sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); + else + sdhci_adma_write_desc(host, desc, addr, len, cmd); } static void sdhci_adma_mark_end(void *desc)
If hosts provides ops->adma_write_desc, we should not fall back to the general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> --- Hi Ulf, Adrian, When I introduced .adma_write_desc, I made a mistake since v4 -- if the host provide ops->adma_write_desc, we should just call it and don't fall back to the general sdhci_adma_write_desc(). Before v4, the adma_write_desc return int, since v4 there's no return value, so when I prepared the v4, I just removed return, this is where the mistake is from. I dunno how to handle this case, fold the patch into previous commit or apply it as a separate patch? I'm very sorry for this. In fact, Adrian caught another similar bug during review. Sorry about the inconvenience, Jisheng drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)