From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanley Chu Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs: add error handling of auto-hibern8 Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 14:58:22 +0800 Message-ID: <1557817102.24427.20.camel@mtkswgap22> References: <1557758186-18706-1-git-send-email-stanley.chu@mediatek.com> <1557758186-18706-3-git-send-email-stanley.chu@mediatek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" Cc: "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "martin.petersen-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "marc.w.gonzalez-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org" , "andy.teng-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "chun-hung.wu-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "kuohong.wang-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "evgreen-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org" , "avri.altman-Sjgp3cTcYWE@public.gmane.org" , "linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "peter.wang-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "alim.akhtar-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , "subhashj-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org" , "sayalil-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org" , "pedrom.sousa-HKixBCOQz3hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Hi Bean, Thanks so much for review. On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 18:21 +0000, Bean Huo (beanhuo) wrote: > Hi, Stanley > > >+ > >+static inline bool ufshcd_is_auto_hibern8_error(struct ufs_hba *hba, > >+ u32 intr_mask) > >+{ > >+ return (ufshcd_is_auto_hibern8_supported(hba) && > >+ !hba->uic_async_done && > > Here check if uic_async_done is NULL, no big problem so far, but not safe enough. > How about setting a flag in ufshcd_auto_hibern8_enable(), > > I concern about how to compatible with auto_hibern8 disabled condition. Currently auto-hibern8 disabling method is not implemented in mainstream, so an "enabling" flag may looks redundant unless disabling path is really existed. I agree that checking hba->uic_async_done here does not look so intuitive. However even if auto-hibern8 is disabled, these checks could be safe enough because both "UIC_HIBERNATE_ENTER" and "UIC_HIBERNATE_EXIT" are raised only if "manual-hibernate" is performed, and in this case hba->uic_async_done shall be true. Anything else or corner case I missed? > > > //Bean Thanks, Stanley > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-mediatek mailing list > Linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek