[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000001d81fcb$3b962f30$b2c28d90$@samsung.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 13:44:34 +0900
From: "Kiwoong Kim" <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>
To: "'Adrian Hunter'" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"'Avri Altman'" <Avri.Altman@....com>,
<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
<cang@...eaurora.org>, <sc.suh@...sung.com>,
<hy50.seo@...sung.com>, <sh425.lee@...sung.com>,
<bhoon95.kim@...sung.com>, <vkumar.1997@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: remove clk_scaling_lock when clkscaling
isn't supported.
> The error handler really should have exclusive access. One of the places
> you change does explain that:
>
> * Hold the scaling lock just in case dev cmds
> * are sent via bsg and/or sysfs.
> */
> - down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
> + if (ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba))
> + down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
Yeah.., I saw the comment but didn't get why.
Is there anyone who knows why it's necessary for all SoCs?
At lease, I know there is no reason to forbid concurrent executions of dev cmd and power mode change.
If there's nothing, how about adding a quick to ignore it?
Thanks.
Kiwoong Kim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists