On 8/5/21 11:34 PM, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
This patch is to activate some interrupt sources
that aren't defined in UFSHCI specifications. Those
purpose could be error handling, workaround or whatever.
Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 10 ++++++++++
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index 05495c34a2b7..f85a9b335e0b 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -6428,6 +6428,16 @@ static irqreturn_t ufshcd_tmc_handler(struct ufs_hba *hba)
static irqreturn_t ufshcd_sl_intr(struct ufs_hba *hba, u32 intr_status)
{
irqreturn_t retval = IRQ_NONE;
+ int res = 0;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ retval = ufshcd_vops_intr(hba, &res);
+ if (res) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
+ hba->force_reset = true;
+ ufshcd_schedule_eh_work(hba);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
+ }
How can a non-standard extension have error handling code in common
code? Please move the code under if (res) into the vendor code.
if (intr_status & UFSHCD_UIC_MASK)
retval |= ufshcd_uic_cmd_compl(hba, intr_status);
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
index 971cfabc4a1e..1ed0a911f864 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
@@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ struct ufs_hba_variant_ops {
const union ufs_crypto_cfg_entry *cfg, int slot);
void (*event_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba,
enum ufs_event_type evt, void *data);
+ irqreturn_t (*intr)(struct ufs_hba *hba, int *res);
};
/* clock gating state */
@@ -1296,6 +1297,13 @@ static inline void ufshcd_vops_config_scaling_param(struct ufs_hba *hba,
hba->vops->config_scaling_param(hba, profile, data);
}
+static inline irqreturn_t ufshcd_vops_intr(struct ufs_hba *hba, int *res)
+{
+ if (hba->vops && hba->vops->intr)
+ return hba->vops->intr(hba, res);
+ return IRQ_NONE;
+}
+
extern struct ufs_pm_lvl_states ufs_pm_lvl_states[];
So this code adds an indirect function call in the interrupt handler?
This will have a negative impact on performance, especially on a kernel
with security mitigations enabled. See also
https://lwn.net/Articles/774743/.
Thanks,
Bart.
