[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <817a6dda-c227-8f90-97f3-204c7d03fb54@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:16:53 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
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 17/08/23 18:02, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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;
>
Either is fine, otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists