Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: Suspend clk scaling on no request

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>]

On 6/27/24 1:37 AM, Ram Prakash Gupta wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 1b65e6ae4137..9f935e5c60e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1560,7 +1560,8 @@ static int ufshcd_devfreq_target(struct device *dev,
>   		ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start)), ret);
>   
>   out:
> -	if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work && !scale_up)
> +	if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work &&
> +			(!scale_up || hba->clk_scaling.suspend_on_no_request))
>   		queue_work(hba->clk_scaling.workq,
>   			   &hba->clk_scaling.suspend_work);
>   
> diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> index bad88bd91995..c14607f2890b 100644
> --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ struct ufs_clk_scaling {
>   	bool is_initialized;
>   	bool is_busy_started;
>   	bool is_suspended;
> +	bool suspend_on_no_request;
>   };
>   
>   #define UFS_EVENT_HIST_LENGTH 8

Who are the other vendors that support clock scaling? I'm asking because
I don't think that the behavior change introduced by this patch should
depend on the SoC vendor.

Thanks,

Bart.