quoted

@@ -596,12 +615,43 @@ int ufshpb_prep(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct

ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
              ufshpb_set_ppn_dirty(hpb, rgn_idx, srgn_idx, srgn_offset,
                               transfer_len);
              spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hpb->rgn_state_lock, flags);
+
+             if (hpb->is_hcm) {
+                     spin_lock(&rgn->rgn_lock);
+                     rgn->reads = 0;
+                     spin_unlock(&rgn->rgn_lock);

Here also.

quoted

+             }
+
              return 0;
      }

      if (!ufshpb_is_support_chunk(hpb, transfer_len))
              return 0;

+     if (hpb->is_hcm) {
+             bool activate = false;
+             /*
+              * in host control mode, reads are the main source for
+              * activation trials.
+              */
+             spin_lock(&rgn->rgn_lock);
+             rgn->reads++;
+             if (rgn->reads == ACTIVATION_THRESHOLD)
+                     activate = true;
+             spin_unlock(&rgn->rgn_lock);
+             if (activate) {
+                     spin_lock_irqsave(&hpb->rsp_list_lock, flags);
+                     ufshpb_update_active_info(hpb, rgn_idx, srgn_idx);

If a transfer_len (possible with HPB2.0) sits accross two
regions/sub-regions,
here it only updates active info of the first region/sub-region.

Yes.  Will fix.

Thanks,
Avri

Thanks,
Can Guo.