Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:18:06 +0800 | From | cang@codeauro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Introduce a vops for resetting host controller |
| |
On 2019-10-31 22:44, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > On 10/22/19 9:13 PM, Can Guo wrote: >> Some UFS host controllers need their specific implementations of >> resetting >> to get them into a good state. Provide a new vops to allow the >> platform >> driver to implement this own reset operation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 10 ++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> index c28c144..161e3c4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> @@ -3859,6 +3859,14 @@ static int ufshcd_link_recovery(struct ufs_hba >> *hba) >> ufshcd_set_eh_in_progress(hba); >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags); >> + ret = ufshcd_vops_full_reset(hba); >> + if (ret) >> + dev_warn(hba->dev, "%s: full reset returned %d\n", >> + __func__, ret); >> + >> + /* Reset the attached device */ >> + ufshcd_vops_device_reset(hba); >> + >> ret = ufshcd_host_reset_and_restore(hba); >> spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags); > > In all your cases, especially after this adjustment, > ufshcd_vops_full_reset is called blindly (+error checking message) > before ufshcd_vops_device_reset. What about dropping the .full_reset > (should really have been called .hw_reset or .host_reset) addition to > the vops, just adding ufshcd_vops_device_reset call here before > ufshcd_host_reset_and_restore, and in the driver folding the > ufshcd_vops_full_reset code into the .device_reset handler? > > Would that be workable? It would be simpler if so. > > I can see a desire for the heads up > (ufshcd_vops_full_reset+)ufshcd_vops_device_reset calls before > ufshcd_host_reset_and_restore because that function will spin 10 > seconds waiting for a response from a standardized register, that > itself could be hardware locked up requiring product specific reset > procedures. But if that is the case, then what about all the other > calls to ufshcd_host_reset_and_restore in this file that are not > provided the heads up? My guess is that the host device only > demonstrated issues in the ufshcd_link_recovery handling path? Are you > sure this is the only path that tickles the controller into a hardware > lockup state? > > Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
Hi Mark Salyzyn,
Folding the "full_reset" vops inito "device_reset" vops is one choice for now. Shall do that. Your guess is correct. the head up is needed in ufshcd_link_recovery() path because link is already in bad state when we are here, expeically after hibern8 exit fails. So we need a full reset to PHY and host controller here before host_reset_and_restore. But other calls to host_reset_and_restore are under good conditions.
Regards, Can Guo.
| |