On 4/15/2021 4:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 4/14/21 11:58 AM, Asutosh Das wrote:
[ ... ]

Hi Bart,
Thanks for the comments. I will fix the comments in the next version.

The following code is executed before ufshcd_async_scan() is called:

        dev = hba->dev;
        [ ... ]
        /* Hold auto suspend until async scan completes */
        pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);

That would only keep the hba runtime resumed. At this point of time the luns are not detected yet.
and the following code occurs in ufshcd_add_lus():

        pm_runtime_put_sync(hba->dev);

Isn't that sufficient to postpone enabling of runtime PM until LUN
scanning has finished? Or in other words, is adding a
pm_runtime_get_noresume() call in ufshcd_slave_configure() really necessary?

Yes, because the supplier (device wlun) may be suspended otherwise in scsi_sysfs_add_sdev().
@@ -4979,15 +5035,9 @@ ufshcd_transfer_rsp_status(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct 
ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
                         */
                        if (!hba->pm_op_in_progress &&
                            !ufshcd_eh_in_progress(hba) &&
-                           ufshcd_is_exception_event(lrbp->ucd_rsp_ptr) &&
-                           schedule_work(&hba->eeh_work)) {
-                               /*
-                                * Prevent suspend once eeh_work is scheduled
-                                * to avoid deadlock between ufshcd_suspend
-                                * and exception event handler.
-                                */
-                               pm_runtime_get_noresume(hba->dev);
-                       }
+                           ufshcd_is_exception_event(lrbp->ucd_rsp_ptr))
+                               /* Flushed in suspend */
+                               schedule_work(&hba->eeh_work);

What makes it safe to leave out the above pm_runtime_get_noresume() call?

The __ufshcd_wl_suspend() would flush this work so that it doesn't run after suspend.
Thanks,

Bart.



--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Reply via email to