On 11/18/24 6:41 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index be5fe2407382..638d9c0e2603 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -1816,19 +1816,17 @@ static void ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling(struct ufs_hba *hba)
static void ufshcd_ungate_work(struct work_struct *work)
{
int ret;
- unsigned long flags;
struct ufs_hba *hba = container_of(work, struct ufs_hba,
clk_gating.ungate_work);
cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hba->clk_gating.gate_work);
- spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
- if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
- return;
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock)
+ {
+ if (hba->clk_gating.state == CLKS_ON)
+ return;
}
Here and elsewhere, please move "{" to the end of the "scoped_guard()"
line since that is the style used in all other Linux kernel code (I know
that clang-format gets this wrong).
/* host lock must be held before calling this variant */
Please remove this comment since your patch makes it incorrect and
replace it with a lockdep_assert_held() call.
+ spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
+ if (ufshcd_has_pending_tasks(hba) ||
+ hba->ufshcd_state != UFSHCD_STATE_OPERATIONAL) {
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
+ return;
+ }
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
Why explicit lock/unlock calls instead of using scoped_guard()?
diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
index d7aca9e61684..8f9997b0dbf9 100644
--- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
+++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
@@ -403,6 +403,8 @@ enum clk_gating_state {
* delay_ms
* @ungate_work: worker to turn on clocks that will be used in case of
* interrupt context
+ * @clk_gating_workq: workqueue for clock gating work.
+ * @lock: serialize access to some struct ufs_clk_gating members
Please document that @lock is the outer lock relative to the host lock.
Thanks,
Bart.
