[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB657555DBC49DF54716A98B6DFCF59@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:24:24 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: fix devfreq deadlocks
> On 12/22/22 02:21, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > + /* Enable Write Booster if we have scaled up else disable it */
> > + if (ufshcd_enable_wb_if_scaling_up(hba))
> > + ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, scale_up);
>
> Hi Asutosh,
>
> This patch is the second complaint about the mechanism that toggles the
> WriteBooster during clock scaling. Can this mechanism be removed entirely?
commit 87bd05016a64 that introduced UFSHCD_CAP_WB_WITH_CLK_SCALING enables
the platform vendors and OEMs to maintain wb toggling - should they choose so.
Why remove it in its entirety?
Thanks,
Avri
>
> I think this commit introduced that mechanism: 3d17b9b5ab11 ("scsi: ufs:
> Add write booster feature support"; v5.8).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists