[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9ade5d5-a160-5ecb-8dc5-777e8a586d51@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 08:02:46 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alim.akhtar@...sung.com, avri.altman@....com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, sc.suh@...sung.com,
hy50.seo@...sung.com, sh425.lee@...sung.com,
kwangwon.min@...sung.com, junwoo80.lee@...sung.com,
wkon.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: poll HCS.UCRDY before issuing a UIC
command
On 8/14/23 04:26, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> And perhaps the following is neater:
>
> u32 val;
>
> return !read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY,
> 500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba,
> REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS);
Would the above make readers of that code wonder whether read_poll_timeout()
perhaps returns a boolean? Wouldn't it be better to test the
read_poll_timeout() return value as follows?
return read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY,
500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba,
REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS) == 0;
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists