On 12/02/2022 06:44, Kiwoong Kim wrote: >> The error handler really should have exclusive access. One of the places >> you change does explain that: >> >> * Hold the scaling lock just in case dev cmds >> * are sent via bsg and/or sysfs. >> */ >> - down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock); >> + if (ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba)) >> + down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock); > > > Yeah.., I saw the comment but didn't get why. > > Is there anyone who knows why it's necessary for all SoCs? > At lease, I know there is no reason to forbid concurrent executions of dev cmd and power mode change. > > If there's nothing, how about adding a quick to ignore it? Is it worth it? The error handler really should have exclusive access. Have you considered, for example, races of ufshcd_reset_and restore() and dev commands, tm commands, UIC commands. I suspect more locking is needed not less.
