Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Introduce a vops for resetting host controller

[cang]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   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.