linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] scsi: ufs: core: Prepare to introduce a new clock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e5e888a-a7d8-4b10-a366-3cefd6685e69@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:28:45 -0800
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,
 Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] scsi: ufs: core: Prepare to introduce a new
 clock_gating lock

On 11/18/24 6:41 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> Removed hba->clk_gating.active_reqs check from ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy
> function to separate clock gating logic from general device busy checks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index e338867bc96c..be5fe2407382 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -258,10 +258,15 @@ ufs_get_desired_pm_lvl_for_dev_link_state(enum ufs_dev_pwr_mode dev_state,
>   	return UFS_PM_LVL_0;
>   }
>   
> +static bool ufshcd_has_pending_tasks(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> +{
> +	return hba->outstanding_tasks || hba->active_uic_cmd ||
> +	       hba->uic_async_done;
> +}
> +
>   static bool ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>   {
> -	return (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs || hba->outstanding_reqs || hba->outstanding_tasks ||
> -		hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done);
> +	return hba->outstanding_reqs || ufshcd_has_pending_tasks(hba);
>   }
>   
>   static const struct ufs_dev_quirk ufs_fixups[] = {
> @@ -1943,7 +1948,9 @@ static void ufshcd_gate_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   		goto rel_lock;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) || hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL)
> +	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) ||
> +	    hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL ||
> +	    hba->clk_gating.active_reqs)
>   		goto rel_lock;
>   
>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> @@ -1999,8 +2006,7 @@ static void __ufshcd_release(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>   
>   	if (hba->clk_gating.active_reqs || hba->clk_gating.is_suspended ||
>   	    hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL ||
> -	    hba->outstanding_tasks || !hba->clk_gating.is_initialized ||
> -	    hba->active_uic_cmd || hba->uic_async_done ||
> +	    ufshcd_has_pending_tasks(hba) || !hba->clk_gating.is_initialized ||
>   	    hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_OFF)
>   		return;
>   
> @@ -8221,7 +8227,9 @@ static void ufshcd_rtc_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   	hba = container_of(to_delayed_work(work), struct ufs_hba, ufs_rtc_update_work);
>   
>   	 /* Update RTC only when there are no requests in progress and UFSHCI is operational */
> -	if (!ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) && hba->ufshcd_state == UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL)
> +	if (!ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(hba) &&
> +	    hba->ufshcd_state == UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL &&
> +	    !hba->clk_gating.active_reqs)
>   		ufshcd_update_rtc(hba);
>   
>   	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_active(hba) && hba->dev_info.rtc_update_period)

Hi Avri,

I see two changes in this patch: introduction of the function
ufshcd_has_pending_tasks() and removal of hba->clk_gating.active_reqs
from ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_busy(). Shouldn't this patch be split into two
patches - one patch per change?

Thanks,

Bart.