RE: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: Add an enum for ufs_trace to check ufs cmd error

["DooHyun Hwang" <dh0421.hwang@samsung.com>]

On 9/3/25 8:57 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/2/25 11:39 PM, DooHyun Hwang wrote:
> > Could you please provide some guidance or suggestions?
> 
> How about this approach?
> * In a separate patch, remove UFS_DEV_COMP because it is not used.
> * Call the new enumeration label UFS_UIC_ERR (UFS UIC command error)
>    since "UIC" is how the UFS standard refers to UIC commands (these are
>    called "device commands" in the UFS driver).
> 
> If anyone else has a different opinion, please speak up.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.

Thank you for your review. Your opinion is truly valuable to me.

Based on your suggestion, I understand that the change involves
renaming UFS_DEV_COMP to UFS_UIC_ERR.
Would it be acceptable to add UFS_UIC_SEND, UFS_UIC_COMP,
and UFS_UIC_ERR at the end of the enum?

I am aware that UFS_DEV_COMP is currently not used in the code,
but I am concerned about whether it is appropriate to modify
or remove existing enum labels.
Therefore, I thought it would be better to discuss the removal
of UFS_DEV_COMP in a separate commit.
Additionally, I considered adding new enums as needed.

I decided to name the new enum UFS_CMD_ERR and add it
in the same type's position, which led to a change in the enum order.
I realized this could also potentially alter existing enum values,
creating room for controversy.
Furthermore, I acknowledged that the label UFS_CMD_ERR may not accurately
represent the purpose of tracing UIC errors.

Thank you.
DooHyun Hwang.