Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:29:52 +0800 | From | Can Guo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: Clean up some lines from ufshcd_hba_exit() |
| |
On 2020-12-09 16:22, Stanley Chu wrote: > Hi Can, > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 22:58 -0800, Can Guo wrote: >> ufshcd_hba_exit() is always called after ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling() and >> ufshcd_exit_clk_gating(), so no need to suspend clock scaling again in >> ufshcd_hba_exit(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> index 12266bd..0a5b197 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> @@ -7765,6 +7765,7 @@ static void ufshcd_async_scan(void *data, >> async_cookie_t cookie) >> if (ret) { >> pm_runtime_put_sync(hba->dev); >> ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling(hba); >> + ufshcd_exit_clk_gating(hba); > > How about moving above two lines to ufshcd_hba_exit()? > > Otherwise looks good to me! > Reviewed-by: Stanley Chu <stanleyc.chu@mediatek.com>
You read my mind - I thought about that too, but in ufshcd_init(), they are separately called on different error out paths.
11232 exit_gating: 11233 ufshcd_exit_clk_scaling(hba); 11234 ufshcd_exit_clk_gating(hba); 11235 out_disable: 11236 hba->is_irq_enabled = false; 11237 ufshcd_hba_exit(hba);
Thanks,
Can Guo.
> >> ufshcd_hba_exit(hba); >> } >> } >> @@ -8203,10 +8204,6 @@ static void ufshcd_hba_exit(struct ufs_hba >> *hba) >> if (hba->is_powered) { >> ufshcd_variant_hba_exit(hba); >> ufshcd_setup_vreg(hba, false); >> - ufshcd_suspend_clkscaling(hba); >> - if (ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba)) >> - if (hba->devfreq) >> - ufshcd_suspend_clkscaling(hba); >> ufshcd_setup_clocks(hba, false); >> ufshcd_setup_hba_vreg(hba, false); >> hba->is_powered = false;
| |