On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:17 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 8/07/21 3:31 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:49 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/07/21 8:39 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 08:29:48PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >>>> If a LUN fails to probe (e.g. absent BOOT WLUN), the device will not have
> >>>> been registered but can still have a device link holding a reference to the
> >>>> device. The unwanted device link will prevent runtime suspend indefinitely,
> >>>> and cause some warnings if the supplier is ever deleted (e.g. by unbinding
> >>>> the UFS host controller). Fix by explicitly deleting the device link when
> >>>> SCSI destroys the SCSI device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 7 +++++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >>>> index 708b3b62fc4d..483aa74fe2c8 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> >>>> @@ -5029,6 +5029,13 @@ static void ufshcd_slave_destroy(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> >>>> spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> >>>> hba->sdev_ufs_device = NULL;
> >>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> >>>> + } else {
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If a LUN fails to probe (e.g. absent BOOT WLUN), the device
> >>>> + * will not have been registered but can still have a device
> >>>> + * link holding a reference to the device.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + device_links_scrap(&sdev->sdev_gendev);
> >>>
> >>> What created that link? And why did it do that before probe happened
> >>> successfully?
> >>
> >> The same driver created the link.
> >>
> >> The documentation seems to say it is allowed to, if it is the consumer.
> >> From Documentation/driver-api/device_link.rst
> >>
> >> Usage
> >> =====
> >>
> >> The earliest point in time when device links can be added is after
> >> :c:func:`device_add()` has been called for the supplier and
> >> :c:func:`device_initialize()` has been called for the consumer.
> >
> > Yes, this is allowed, but if you've added device links to a device
> > object that is not going to be registered after all, you are
> > responsible for doing the cleanup.
> >
> > Why can't you call device_link_del() directly on those links?
> >
> > Or device_link_remove() if you don't want to deal with link pointers?
> >
>
> Those only work for DL_FLAG_STATELESS device links, but we use only
> DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME | DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE flags.
Is there a reason you can't use DL_FLAG_STATELESS? It doesn't preclude
you from using RPM_ACTIVE as far as I can tell.
-Saravana
-Saravana
