Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] scsi: ufs: Simplify error handling preparation
To:     Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1623300218-9454-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1623300218-9454-6-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <6abb81f6-4dd2-082e-9440-4b549f105788@intel.com>
 <f0ae504bccc428fa674a183608174bdd@codeaurora.org>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4f6ea52f-308e-8252-5a19-3911eb9b99b1@acm.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:58:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f0ae504bccc428fa674a183608174bdd@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/10/21 8:01 PM, Can Guo wrote:
> Previously, without commit cb7e6f05fce67c965194ac04467e1ba7bc70b069, 
> ufshcd_resume() may turn off pwr and clk due to UFS error, e.g., link
> transition failure and SSU error/abort (and these UFS error would
> invoke error handling).  When error handling kicks start, it should
> re-enable the pwr and clk before proceeding. Now, commit 
> cb7e6f05fce67c965194ac04467e1ba7bc70b069 makes ufshcd_resume()
> purely control pwr and clk, meaning if ufshcd_resume() fails, there
> is nothing we can do about it - pwr or clk enabling must have failed,
> and it is not because of UFS error. This is why I am removing the
> re-enabling pwr/clk in error handling prepare.

Why are link transition failures handled in the error handler instead of
in the context where these errors are detected (ufshcd_resume())? Is it
even possible to recover from a link transition failure or does this
perhaps indicate a broken UFS controller?

>> but what I really wonder is why we don't just do recovery directly
>> in __ufshcd_wl_suspend() and  __ufshcd_wl_resume() and strip all 
>> the PM complexity out of ufshcd_err_handling()?

+1

> For system suspend/resume, since error handling has the same nature
> like user access, so we are using host_sem to avoid concurrency of
> error handling and system suspend/resume.

Why is host_sem used for that purpose instead of lock_system_sleep() and
unlock_system_sleep()?

Thanks,

Bart.