> > static inline bool ufshcd_ready_for_uic_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > {
> > - return ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS) & UIC_COMMAND_READY;
> > + ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_ms(ktime_get(), UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT);
> > + u32 val = 0;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + val = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS) &
> > + UIC_COMMAND_READY;
> > + if (val)
> > + break;
> > + udelay(500);
> > + } while (ktime_before(ktime_get(), timeout));
> > +
> > + return val ? true : false;
> > }
>
> Sleeping during up to 500 ms while holding a spin lock is not acceptable.
> Has it been considered to modify the UFS core such that the host_lock is
> not held around calls of the above function, e.g. via the (untested) patch
> below?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Let me consider it.
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c index
> 9736b2b4120e..394283b04d7c 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -2416,7 +2416,6 @@ __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct
> uic_command *uic_cmd,
> bool completion)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&hba->uic_cmd_mutex);
> - lockdep_assert_held(hba->host->host_lock);
>
> if (!ufshcd_ready_for_uic_cmd(hba)) {
> dev_err(hba->dev,
> @@ -2452,9 +2451,7 @@ int ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct
> uic_command *uic_cmd)
> mutex_lock(&hba->uic_cmd_mutex);
> ufshcd_add_delay_before_dme_cmd(hba);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> ret = __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(hba, uic_cmd, true);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> if (!ret)
> ret = ufshcd_wait_for_uic_cmd(hba, uic_cmd);
>
> @@ -4122,8 +4119,8 @@ static int ufshcd_uic_pwr_ctrl(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> struct uic_command *cmd)
> wmb();
> reenable_intr = true;
> }
> - ret = __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(hba, cmd, false);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> + ret = __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(hba, cmd, false);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(hba->dev,
> "pwr ctrl cmd 0x%x with mode 0x%x uic error %d\n",
