lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: Put SCSI host after remove it
On 2019-12-17 09:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/16/19 4:46 PM, cang@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2019-12-17 01:39, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Apparently some UFS drivers call ufshcd_remove() only and others
>>> (PCIe) call both ufshcd_remove() and ufshcd_dealloc_host(). I think
>>> that the above change will cause trouble for the PCIe driver unless
>>> the ufshcd_dealloc_host() call is removed from ufshcd_pci_remove().
>>
>> You may get me wrong. I mean we should do like what ufshcd-pci.c does.
>> As driver probe routine allocates SCSI host, then driver remove()
>> should
>> de-allocate it. Meaning ufs_qcom_remove() should call both
>> ufshcd_remove()
>> and ufshcd_dealloc_host().
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 3d4582e..ea45756 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -3239,6 +3239,7 @@ static int ufs_qcom_remove(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>
>>           pm_runtime_get_sync(&(pdev)->dev);
>>           ufshcd_remove(hba);
>>  +       ufshcd_dealloc_host(hba);
>>           return 0;
>>    }
>
> Hi Can,
>
> If it is possible to move the ufshcd_dealloc_host() into
> ufshcd_remove() then I would prefer to do that. If all UFS transport
> drivers need that call then I think that call should happen from the
> UFS core instead of from the transport drivers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.

Yeah, that is an once for all solution, but I not sure if PCI folks are
OK if I remove the ufshcd_dealloc_host() call from their driver.
In next version, I will try to make such change and see.

Thanks,
Can Guo.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 02:32    [W:0.048 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site