On 12/11/19 3:49 AM, Can Guo wrote:
In order to improve the flexibility of ufs-bsg, modulizing it is a good
choice. This change introduces tristate to ufs-bsg to allow users compile
it as an external module.
Did you perhaps mean "modularize" instead of "modulize"? Additionally,
should "modulizing" perhaps be changed into "modularizing"?
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig b/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
index d14c224..72620ce 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/Kconfig
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ config SCSI_UFSHCD
select PM_DEVFREQ
select DEVFREQ_GOV_SIMPLE_ONDEMAND
select NLS
+ select BLK_DEV_BSGLIB
---help---
This selects the support for UFS devices in Linux, say Y and make
sure that you know the name of your UFS host adapter (the card
I do not understand the above change. Doesn't moving the BSG code into a
separate module remove the dependency of SCSI_UFSHCD on BLK_DEV_BSGLIB?
+static int __init ufs_bsg_init(void)
+{
+ struct list_head *hba_list = NULL;
+ struct ufs_hba *hba;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ ufshcd_get_hba_list_lock(&hba_list);
+ list_for_each_entry(hba, hba_list, list) {
+ ret = ufs_bsg_probe(hba);
+ if (ret)
+ break;
+ }
+ ufshcd_put_hba_list_unlock();
+
+ return ret;
+}
What if ufs_bsg_probe() succeeds for some UFS adapters but not for
others? Shouldn't ufs_bgs_remove() be called in that case for the
adapters for which ufs_bsg_probe() succeeded?
+late_initcall_sync(ufs_bsg_init);
+module_exit(ufs_bsg_exit);
Why late_initcall_sync() instead of module_init()?
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index a86b0fd..7a83a8f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -108,6 +108,22 @@
16, 4, buf, __len, false); \
} while (0)
+static LIST_HEAD(ufs_hba_list);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(ufs_hba_list_lock);
+
+void ufshcd_get_hba_list_lock(struct list_head **list)
+{
+ mutex_lock(&ufs_hba_list_lock);
+ *list = &ufs_hba_list;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ufshcd_get_hba_list_lock);
Please make ufshcd_get_hba_list_lock() return the list_head pointer
instead of the above.
Thanks,
Bart.
