[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <611fc99e-c947-463a-82e1-9d2a68d67aa4@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:11:12 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock
On 10/29/24 3:29 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock) {
> + /*
> + * In case you are here to cancel this work the gating state
> + * would be marked as REQ_CLKS_ON. In this case save time by
> + * skipping the gating work and exit after changing the clock
> + * state to CLKS_ON.
> + */
> + if (hba->clk_gating.is_suspended || (hba->clk_gating.state != REQ_CLKS_OFF)) {
> + hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_ON;
> + trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev), hba->clk_gating.state);
> + return;
> + }
> + if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL)
> + return;
> }
Please remove the superfluous parentheses from around the REQ_CLKS_OFF
test and do not exceed the 80 column limit. git clang-format HEAD^ can
help with restricting code to the 80 column limit.
> @@ -2072,18 +2055,18 @@ static ssize_t ufshcd_clkgate_enable_store(struct device *dev,
>
> value = !!value;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> - if (value == hba->clk_gating.is_enabled)
> - goto out;
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock) {
> + if (value == hba->clk_gating.is_enabled)
> + goto out;
>
> - if (value)
> - __ufshcd_release(hba);
> - else
> - hba->clk_gating.active_reqs++;
> + if (value)
> + __ufshcd_release(hba);
> + else
> + hba->clk_gating.active_reqs++;
>
> - hba->clk_gating.is_enabled = value;
> + hba->clk_gating.is_enabled = value;
> + }
> out:
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> return count;
> }
Please use guard() instead of scoped_guard() and remove the "out:"
label.
> @@ -9173,11 +9157,10 @@ static int ufshcd_setup_clocks(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool on)
> clk_disable_unprepare(clki->clk);
> }
> } else if (!ret && on) {
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> - hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_ON;
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock)
> + hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_ON;
> trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev),
> hba->clk_gating.state);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> }
The above change moves the trace_ufshcd_clk_gating() call from inside
the region protected by the host lock to outside the region protected
by clk_gating.lock. If this is intentional, shouldn't this be mentioned
in the patch description?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists