On 2/01/21 3:10 pm, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2021-01-02 20:29, Can Guo wrote:
>> On 2021-01-02 00:05, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 12/31/20 9:44 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>> During system resume/suspend, hba could be NULL. In this case, do not touch
>>>> eh_sem.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 88a92d6ae4fe ("scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM events
>>>> and async scan")
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 9 +++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> index e221add..34e2541 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>>>> @@ -8896,8 +8896,11 @@ int ufshcd_system_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>> int ret = 0;
>>>> ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>>>>
>>>> + if (!hba)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> down(&hba->eh_sem);
>>>> - if (!hba || !hba->is_powered)
>>>> + if (!hba->is_powered)
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> if ((ufs_get_pm_lvl_to_dev_pwr_mode(hba->spm_lvl) ==
>>>> @@ -8945,10 +8948,8 @@ int ufshcd_system_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>> int ret = 0;
>>>> ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>>>>
>>>> - if (!hba) {
>>>> - up(&hba->eh_sem);
>>>> + if (!hba)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> - }
>>>>
>>>> if (!hba->is_powered || pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev))
>>>> /*
>>>
>>> Hi Can,
>>>
>>> How can ufshcd_system_suspend() or ufshcd_system_resume() be called with a
>>> NULL argument? In ufshcd_pci_probe() I see that pci_set_drvdata() is called
>>> before pm_runtime_allow(). ufshcd_pci_remove() calls pm_runtime_forbid().
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bart.
>>
>> Hi Bart,
>>
>> You are right about ufshcd_RUNTIME_suspend/resume() - platform_set_drvdata()
>> is called before pm_runtime_enable(), so runtime suspend/resume cannot happen
>> before pm_runtime_enable() is called. We can remove the sanity checks of
>> !hba there, they are outdated.
>
> Add more history here - before Stanley's change (see below),
> platform_set_drvdata()
> is called AFTER pm_runtime_enable(), which was why we needed sanity checks
> of !hba.
> But now the sanity checks are unnecessary in
> ufshcd_RUNTIME_suspend/resume(), so
> feel free to remove them.
>
> But still, things are a bit different for ufshcd_SYSTEM_suspend/resume(), we
> need
> the sanity checks of !hba there if my understanding is correct.
>
> commit 24e2e7a19f7e4b83d0d5189040d997bce3596473
> Author: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Jun 12 23:19:05 2019 +0800
>
> scsi: ufs: Avoid runtime suspend possibly being blocked forever
>
> Thanks,
> Can Guo.
>
>>
>> But for ufshcd_SYSTEM_suspend/resume() callbacks (not runtime ones), my
>> understanding is that system suspend/resume may happen after probe (vendor
>> driver probe calls ufshcd_pltfrm_init()) starts but before
>> platform_set_drvdata()
>> is called, in this case hba is NULL.
>>
>> int ufshcd_pltfrm_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> const struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *vops)
>> {
>> ...
>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hba);
>>
>> pm_runtime_set_active(&pdev->dev);
>> pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
>> }
Hi Can
I expect probe and system suspend are synchronized e.g. by device_lock(), so
hba would not be NULL. Is there any example of it being NULL in system suspend?
Regards
Adrian
