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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 8C269C432BE for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2C060E76 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232566AbhHIQJV (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:09:21 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]:39731 "EHLO mail-pl1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229456AbhHIQJU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:09:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id l11so5263635plk.6; Mon, 09 Aug 2021 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=36IFvq2hJqTtdBeE9dQ+kAyJuaNM0YGuzKVOtVidu4E=; b=bEQG9oDpcEtYU0SWatbsusYJStBlSjAwUbaiqRlBOFWp/j4SbT+rus4vomUblHiTlv kiI/N2oo6Ay3RkfX4J+VLlWNL2XuHsDDkSk1hTnFDbBzyfPIvxLGW+KinlcRCkT7IFIC b9ZzdIQtGhnl4KWa0mH1iBwkGbXU6ItjO5Di2c/c5uyJLQCEbN9RWRfT4JkqjrOulZ5f d2U1D7La+mc/WMmhts3b/mLiR4RBYu4N4N6hCXY3HpYHyTUqNbAODHa6jRIUsnf+XZGV /7h8t/QfLgmcsYjWTsJoHFNEkbw9bscpcHbl/Tfb02VzAUIeuce1dFbiuJFSDMVhmLld iIhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531O0erdps8UaVM4jEBk2UU0vDH+P+sxSlhKaKuSDQt/vqGbWHz0 0PYdVj8RpkUfvKCtYYy6d7s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1iLnr943CFtyXg5yRvu7usWeVKxubZloldJl+nJaBk1xWVi9SQjZ9r8hmLHAa24ZrC5Lisg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:800e:0:b029:3a9:e527:c13 with SMTP id j14-20020aa7800e0000b02903a9e5270c13mr19021456pfi.42.1628525339678; Mon, 09 Aug 2021 09:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4000:d7:7dd4:e46e:368b:7454? ([2601:647:4000:d7:7dd4:e46e:368b:7454]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l185sm13254376pfd.62.2021.08.09.09.08.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Aug 2021 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] scsi: ufs: introduce vendor isr To: Kiwoong Kim , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com, cang@codeaurora.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, sc.suh@samsung.com, hy50.seo@samsung.com, sh425.lee@samsung.com, bhoon95.kim@samsung.com References: <000601d78cf2$a160f820$e422e860$@samsung.com> From: Bart Van Assche Message-ID: <32cc37cd-2f66-0f74-5242-cfcf86f58844@acm.org> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 09:08:56 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <000601d78cf2$a160f820$e422e860$@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/9/21 12:46 AM, Kiwoong Kim wrote: >> How about extending the UFS spec instead of adding a non-standard >> mechanism in a driver that is otherwise based on a standard? > > It seems to be a great approach but I wonder if extending for the events > that all the SoC vendors require in the spec is recommendable. > Because I think there is quite possible that many of those things are > originated for architectural reasons. Has the interrupt mechanism supported by this patch series already been implemented or is it still possible to change the ASIC design? In the latter case, I propose the following: * Drop the new interrupt. * Instead of raising an interrupt if the UFS controller detects an inconsistency, report this via a check condition code, e.g. LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, HARD RESET REQUIRED (there may be a better choice). The above approach has the advantage that it does not slow down the UFS interrupt handler. Thanks, Bart.