Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add support for dumping MCQ registers

[MANISH PANDEY <quic_mapa@quicinc.com>]

On 3/24/2025 1:09 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:51:07AM +0530, MANISH PANDEY wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/18/2025 12:14 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:46:34AM +0530, Manish Pandey wrote:
>>>> This patch adds functionality to dump MCQ registers.
>>>> This will help in diagnosing issues related to MCQ
>>>> operations by providing detailed register dumps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Same comment as previous patch. Also, make use of 75 column width.
>>>
>> will Update in next patch set.>> Signed-off-by: Manish Pandey
>> <quic_mapa@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>> - Addressed Bart's review comments by adding explanations for the
>>>>     in_task() and usleep_range() calls.
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Rebased patchsets.
>>>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241025055054.23170-1-quic_mapa@quicinc.com/
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.h |  2 ++
>>>>    2 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>>>> index f5181773c0e5..fb9da04c0d35 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>>>> @@ -1566,6 +1566,54 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host *host)
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>> +static void ufs_qcom_dump_mcq_hci_regs(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	/* sleep intermittently to prevent CPU hog during data dumps. */
>>>> +	/* RES_MCQ_1 */
>>>> +	ufshcd_dump_regs(hba, 0x0, 256 * 4, "MCQ HCI 1da0000-1da03f0 ");
>>>> +	usleep_range(1000, 1100);
>>>
>>> If your motivation is just to not hog the CPU, use cond_resched().
>>>
>>> - Mani
>>>
>> The intention here is to introduce a specific delay between each dump.
> 
> What is the reason for that?
> 
>> Therefore, i would like to use usleep_range() instead of cond_resched().
>> Please let me know if i am getting it wrong..
>>
> 
> Without knowing the reason, I cannot judge. Your comment said that you do not
> want to hog the CPU during dump. But now you are saying that you wanted to have
> a delay. Both are contradictions.
> 
> - Mani
> 
Hi Mani, Could you please clarify what you meant by delay? Did you mean 
udelay? That's not the case here, as we are using usleep(), which is 
similar to cond_resched(). I believe both serve the same purpose in this 
case. Therefore, I chose usleep() to provide a fixed delay between dumps 
since we are dumping a large amount of data. Additionally, I wanted to 
avoid any extra scheduling latency associated with cond_resched().

How ever i am open to change it to cond_resched() if needed.
Please suggest.

Regards
Manish