On 6/23/21 1:05 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/23/21 12:35 AM, Can Guo wrote: >> Rename pm_op_in_progress and is_sys_suspended to wlu_pm_op_in_progress and >> is_wlu_sys_suspended accordingly. > > My understanding is that power management operations must be submitted > to one particular UFS WLUN (hba->sdev_ufs_device). That makes the "wlu_" > part of the new names redundant. In other words, I like the current > names better than the new names. Unless if I missed something, consider > dropping this patch. Hi Can, Reviewing later patches in this series made me realize that there are two families of suspend/resume functions. One family of functions operates at the platform level while the other family operates at the SCSI LUN level. My comments about the suspend/resume functions are as follows: - It seems redundant to me to have system suspend support at the SCSI LUN level (__ufshcd_wl_suspend(hba, UFS_SYSTEM_PM)) and also at the platform level. Since the platform device is a parent of the SCSI WLUN, can system suspend/resume support be left out from ufshcd_wl_pm_ops (or in other words, remove the .freeze and .thaw callbacks)? Do we really need two calls from the power management subsystem into the UFS driver for every system suspend and every system resume? - Because of the device links (device_link_add()), the ufschd_wl_*() RPM callbacks are invoked after all LUNs have been suspended. I would appreciate it if the "ufshcd_wl_" prefix would be changed into "ufshcd_lun_" since that would make it more clear that these callbacks are associated with all LUNs and not only with the WLUN through which power management commands are submitted. Thanks, Bart.
