From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 003.mia.mailroute.net (003.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E779312834; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.6 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762879080; cv=none; b=pXTdufegw3SDvyapTHf6vzfi4/tvakAt7y1WJqliOkbshjqW8ALDEzghzRMW3AIqbsMIA4eLcKkV+ho5iqu9CE7OK1FBOHAQmHX8F3Y+xJK0S/CzeDVXjXh0wQBunlXE4KQ92ajaik9Yi9MDyXlum+K4l3uERS/ZC+P1oQSemcQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762879080; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WB52QtiKFD/17i5bL4H9LLCE1ceHoCk1fNfnbl8nCV0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SviaEFaUJ+SNJzDY8B7ruRY3VuNj7sMbrEDFsuRjVaufzQ+X6WRs3QoVTWojMf4xs1iPFSLW+YYcJYHz0jDhm8sXa7DAjxj7ClSrJtRCc9GlbND0MAaQll7nBJtU6OZFtcaIfcm3/sa0C4RQjwPAaN9On8QLow0r7LVgqhQK9h4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=z20rIDfP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.6 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="z20rIDfP" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 003.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4d5XJb0yS6zltMW0; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:37:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1762879069; x=1765471070; bh=WB52QtiKFD/17i5bL4H9LLCE 1ceHoCk1fNfnbl8nCV0=; b=z20rIDfPl5+wTl6Zdtmzyoh0K7/P6N3M21MPGpRB Nw9qeUwpi0I7JyxiLz2CCA3PGCsZltHF5ViTWrbXhY4/p6kIP5fYYXnzfxuRKsmf tXJ21HUCp2i4HoxyLQ2guC5xu+OPr5a9geDDBGZSnlAKdNG2+Xdf+qcidc9jdAw5 Irzx/i7G25/sRV9iftbxeVLihx5i5WnRzvIEzvVDv1Ajs9drm1jObXMPktS+Pt8W siejfJOrOVmCHT6Qj7VbQI3MMMIBqtfivFDK6qLHo7N/37rUbZPrNQsmf+HqqlT5 Ka/OzxbV0Rjya87omI5vdK1SC6wttbHEy3ha+voKgaxcqg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 003.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (003.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id z7_AnTf2sIef; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.111.50.167] (191.sub-174-194-195.myvzw.com [174.194.195.191]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 003.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4d5XJ55hhlzltH7F; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:37:19 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] UFS: Make TM command timeout configurable from host side To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ZXIgV2FuZyAo546L5L+h5Y+LKQ==?= , "beanhuo@micron.com" , "sh043.lee@samsung.com" , "avri.altman@wdc.com" , "storage.sec@samsung.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "alim.akhtar@samsung.com" , "adrian.hunter@intel.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" References: <20251106012654.4094-1-sh043.lee@samsung.com> <009401dc52e7$5d042cf0$170c86d0$@samsung.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/11/25 1:03 AM, Peter Wang (=E7=8E=8B=E4=BF=A1=E5=8F=8B) wrote: > It seems that there is no node in the DTS to describe the > UFS device. The UFS host node is not suitable, because the > timeout value depends on the UFS device itself. >=20 > Since you found that some devices may have TM command > times exceeding 100ms, why not add a device quirk and change > the timeout value only for those devices? >=20 > Alternatively, you could consider using a module parameter, > similar to uic_cmd_timeout and dev_cmd_timeout. Why a quirk? A quirk will select a single specific timeout. The approach of this patch lets the host driver set the timeout. This seems more flexible to me than introducing a new quirk. Additionally, I think this is a better solution than a new kernel module parameter. Thanks, Bart.