[PATCH v1] ufs: core: Fix runtime suspend error deadlock

[Bart Van Assche]

On 9/23/25 1:20 AM, peter.wang at mediatek.com wrote:
> From: Peter Wang <peter.wang at mediatek.com>
> 
> Resolve the deadlock issue during runtime suspend when an
> error triggers the error handler. Prevent the deadlock
> by checking pm_op_in_progress and performing a quick recovery.
> This approach ensures that the error handler does not wait
> indefinitely for runtime PM to resume, allowing runtime
> suspend to proceed smoothly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Wang <peter.wang at mediatek.com>
> Suggested-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche at acm.org>
> Tested-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche at acm.org>
> ---
>   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 88a0e9289ca6..0735bd5df1cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -6681,6 +6681,11 @@ static void ufshcd_err_handler(struct work_struct *work)
>   	}
>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>   
> +	if (hba->pm_op_in_progress) {
> +		ufshcd_link_recovery(hba);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>   	ufshcd_err_handling_prepare(hba);
>   
>   	spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);

Does this patch introduce a race condition? Can a power management
operation start after hba->pm_op_in_progress has been tested and before
ufshcd_err_handling_prepare() is called? Should the added code perhaps
be surrounded with ufshcd_rpm_get_noresume() and ufshcd_rpm_put()?

Thanks,

Bart.