From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175EEC4320A for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0148861057 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343510AbhIATl4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:41:56 -0400 Received: from m43-7.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.7]:32400 "EHLO m43-7.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244663AbhIATlz (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:41:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1630525258; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: Date: Message-ID: From: References: Cc: To: Subject: Sender; bh=rfGNsu/8l3t692FJxNuRkch2G6PYTMKpGZz5XTEx3Ks=; b=b7kgrXlbKiFFgtepflNa0lYT/HDvnxJ2sO//M/6QympqBrQg1CEebSRdQEvifYPMpAyv7fAT 2pqsAtsqxUMoeC7FrcbueWgr7a5S+0WrzSTgVvdc23UzayKc2XddBckGpoRog711JQVosX2w 9WPBfwaLuTyC58pMETN0KElFu4s= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.7 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI0MWYwYSIsICJsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n03.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 612fd74740d2129ac1f1953b (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:40:55 GMT Sender: asutoshd=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4FCE5C43616; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (cpe-66-27-70-157.san.res.rr.com [66.27.70.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: asutoshd) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30BC6C4338F; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:40:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 30BC6C4338F Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception handling To: Bart Van Assche , Avri Altman , "James E . J . Bottomley" , "Martin K . Petersen" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Hunter , Bean Huo References: <20210901123707.5014-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> <20210901123707.5014-3-avri.altman@wdc.com> <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org> From: "Asutosh Das (asd)" Message-ID: <49a3985a-4d4d-006a-499e-2270bd7db250@codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:40:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote: >> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need >> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that.  Each chipset vendor can >> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some >> Privet implementation. > > Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme > temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of > making each vendor come up with a different implementation. > I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd. There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do depending upon use-case, I imagine. >> +    void    (*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status); > > Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of > that vop. > > Thanks, > > Bart. -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, Linux Foundation Collaborative Project