Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: Suspend clk scaling on no request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/27/24 1:37 AM, Ram Prakash Gupta wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 1b65e6ae4137..9f935e5c60e8 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -1560,7 +1560,8 @@ static int ufshcd_devfreq_target(struct device *dev,
  		ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start)), ret);
out:
-	if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work && !scale_up)
+	if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work &&
+			(!scale_up || hba->clk_scaling.suspend_on_no_request))
  		queue_work(hba->clk_scaling.workq,
  			   &hba->clk_scaling.suspend_work);
diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
index bad88bd91995..c14607f2890b 100644
--- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
+++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
@@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ struct ufs_clk_scaling {
  	bool is_initialized;
  	bool is_busy_started;
  	bool is_suspended;
+	bool suspend_on_no_request;
  };
#define UFS_EVENT_HIST_LENGTH 8

Who are the other vendors that support clock scaling? I'm asking because
I don't think that the behavior change introduced by this patch should
depend on the SoC vendor.

Thanks,

Bart.




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux