From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] scsi: ufs: wrap the i/o access operations Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 07:21:50 -0700 Message-ID: <1368109310.1966.3.camel@dabdike> References: <1366812872-26331-1-git-send-email-sthumma@codeaurora.org> <001e01ce4105$ab4e2430$01ea6c90$%jun@samsung.com> <000b01ce48a3$ad7072e0$085158a0$%jun@samsung.com> <002401ce4bc7$cda068a0$68e139e0$%jun@samsung.com> <000201ce4c58$e3bc3b00$ab34b100$%jun@samsung.com> <000901ce4c7f$f47fd920$dd7f8b60$%jun@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:50663 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751222Ab3EIOVy (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 May 2013 10:21:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Y Cc: Seungwon Jeon , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Vinayak Holikatti On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:22 +0530, Santosh Y wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote: > > On Thursday, May 09, 2013 Santosh wrote: > >> > There are two patches remained. These are applied with your final comments. > >> > Do you have any idea? > >> > [PATCH v4 5/6] scsi: ufs: add dme configuration primitives > >> > [PATCH v4 6/6] scsi: ufs: add dme control primitives > >> > > >> > >> Since there is no use case for these implementations yet, except for > >> ufshcd_get_dme_attr_val(), as per James's suggestion > >> [http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org/msg20207.html] > >> I did not ACK the patches. > >> The same patches can be used to implement related features and resubmit later. > > I respect your decision. But I have another opinion. > > The remained patches are basic operations which should be supported by ufshcd. > > Especially, dme_set/set will be used in vender specific part of host controller rather than in ufshcd itself. > > And above all, Maya Erez completed to test and reported working fine. > > If these patches are merged this time, it would be helpful to various hosts. > > > > I'm ok with merging these patches if James is fine with it. I will ACK > the patches. Well, no, not really. The rule is simple: we don't add new functions to the kernel without callers. The reason is also simple: trying to do interface first and then user some time later is a "make work" development strategy that practically guarantees the interface is either never used or needs modification. From the kernel's point of view, which is more important, review of a function with no callers is only partial because you've no idea how it will be used. Whereas if you review a function and its callers, you can see how the API works and possibly suggest improvements. James