On 2021-06-25 01:35, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 6/23/21 12:35 AM, Can Guo wrote:
@@ -9141,6 +9143,8 @@ static int ufshcd_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
if (!hba->is_powered)
return 0;
+
+ hba->pm_op_in_progress = true;
/*
* Disable the host irq as host controller as there won't be any
* host controller transaction expected till resume.
@@ -9160,6 +9164,7 @@ static int ufshcd_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
ufshcd_vreg_set_lpm(hba);
/* Put the host controller in low power mode if possible */
ufshcd_hba_vreg_set_lpm(hba);
+ hba->pm_op_in_progress = false;
return ret;
}
@@ -9179,6 +9184,7 @@ static int ufshcd_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba)
if (!hba->is_powered)
return 0;
+ hba->pm_op_in_progress = true;
ufshcd_hba_vreg_set_hpm(hba);
ret = ufshcd_vreg_set_hpm(hba);
if (ret)
@@ -9198,6 +9204,7 @@ static int ufshcd_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba)
out:
if (ret)
ufshcd_update_evt_hist(hba, UFS_EVT_RESUME_ERR, (u32)ret);
+ hba->pm_op_in_progress = false;
return ret;
}
Has it been considered to check dev->power.runtime_status instead of
introducing the pm_op_in_progress variable?
ufshcd_resume() is also used by system resume, while runtime_status only
tells about runtime resume. So does ufshcd_suspend().
Thanks,
Can Guo.
Thanks,
Bart.
