Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ufs: ufs-qcom: Fix a few BUGs in func ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs()

Can Guo
2020-07-14T04:17:17Z

Hi Bart,

On 2020-07-14 11:47, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-07-13 19:28, Can Guo wrote:
>> Dumping testbus registers needs to sleep a bit intermittently as there
>> are
>> too many of them. Skip them for those contexts where sleep is not
>> allowed.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs() calls ufs_qcom_testbus_config()
>> from
>> ufshcd_suspend/resume and/or clk gate/ungate context,
>> pm_runtime_get_sync()
>> and ufshcd_hold() will cause racing problems. Fix it by removing the
>> unnecessary calls of pm_runtime_get_sync() and ufshcd_hold().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 17 +++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 2e6ddb5..3743c17 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -1604,9 +1604,6 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host
>> *host)
>> */
>> }
>> mask <<= offset;
>> -
>> - pm_runtime_get_sync(host->hba->dev);
>> - ufshcd_hold(host->hba, false);
>> ufshcd_rmwl(host->hba, TEST_BUS_SEL,
>> (u32)host->testbus.select_major << 19,
>> REG_UFS_CFG1);
>> @@ -1619,8 +1616,6 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host
>> *host)
>> * committed before returning.
>> */
>> mb();
>> - ufshcd_release(host->hba);
>> - pm_runtime_put_sync(host->hba->dev);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -1658,11 +1653,13 @@ static void ufs_qcom_dump_dbg_regs(struct
>> ufs_hba *hba)
>>
>> /* sleep a bit intermittently as we are dumping too much data */
>> ufs_qcom_print_hw_debug_reg_all(hba, NULL,
>> ufs_qcom_dump_regs_wrapper);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> - ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> - ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
>> - udelay(1000);
>> + if (in_task()) {
>> + udelay(1000);
>> + ufs_qcom_testbus_read(hba);
>> + udelay(1000);
>> + ufs_qcom_print_unipro_testbus(hba);
>> + udelay(1000);
>> + }
>> }
>
> It is not clear to me how udelay() calls can help in code that takes
> long
> since these functions use busy-waiting? Should the udelay() calls
> perhaps
> be changed into cond_resched() calls?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

Maybe you are right, but this is not the purpose of this change. I am
just
trying to make sure this func can be invoked from any contexts without
making troubles like schedule while atomic and/or race conditions.

Thanks,

Can Guo.