On 12/1/22 01:43, peter.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
@@ -9049,6 +9050,20 @@ static int __ufshcd_wl_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
if (!hba->dev_info.b_rpm_dev_flush_capable) {
ret = ufshcd_set_dev_pwr_mode(hba, req_dev_pwr_mode);
+ if ((ret) && (pm_op != UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)) {
Please remove the superfluous parentheses from the above statement.
+ /*
+ * If return err in suspend flow, IO will hang.
+ * Trigger error handler and break suspend for
+ * error recovery.
+ */
+ spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
__ufshcd_wl_suspend() is allowed to sleep. Please change
spin_lock_irqsave() into spin_lock_irq().
+ hba->force_reset = true;
+ ufshcd_schedule_eh_work(hba);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock,
+ flags);
+
+ ret = -EBUSY;
Why is the value of 'ret' changed into -EBUSY? Can the above code be
left out?
@@ -9060,6 +9075,20 @@ static int __ufshcd_wl_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
*/
check_for_bkops = !ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_deepsleep(hba);
ret = ufshcd_link_state_transition(hba, req_link_state, check_for_bkops);
+ if ((ret) && (pm_op != UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)) {
+ /*
+ * If return err in suspend flow, IO will hang.
+ * Trigger error handler and break suspend for
+ * error recovery.
+ */
+ 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);
+
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ }
Same comments as above for this code block.
Thanks,
Bart.
