On Mon, 2025-08-04 at 15:54 +0800, Ziqi Chen wrote: > > Hi Peter && Bart, > > How do you think about using > > if (!mutex_trylock(&hba->host->scan_mutex)) > return -EAGAIN; > > instead of > > mutex_lock(&hba->host->scan_mutex); > > But this way will cause one line print of devfreq failed. > > BRs > Ziqi Hi Ziqi, After applying the patch below, the lockdep issue no longer appears. Would you be able to upstream this fix? --- diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c index 2ff91f2..0af34ce 100644 --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c @@ -1435,7 +1435,8 @@ static int ufshcd_clock_scaling_prepare(struct ufs_hba *hba, u64 timeout_us) * make sure that there are no outstanding requests when * clock scaling is in progress */ - mutex_lock(&hba->host->scan_mutex); + if(!mutex_trylock(&hba->host->scan_mutex)) + return -EAGAIN; blk_mq_quiesce_tagset(&hba->host->tag_set); mutex_lock(&hba->wb_mutex); down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock); Thanks. Peter
