[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ec8a7a6-c2cd-4861-9a43-8a4652e0f116@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 11:18:31 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: "Bao D. Nguyen" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>, quic_cang@...cinc.com,
quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com, avri.altman@....com, beanhuo@...ron.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: qcom: Update the UIC Command Timeout
On 5/22/24 00:01, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
> Change the UIC command timeout to 2 seconds.
> This extra time is to allow the uart occasionally print long
> debug messages and logging from different modules during
> product development. With the default hardcoded 500ms timeout,
> the uart printing with interrupt disabled may cause the UIC command
> interrupt get starved, resulting in a UIC command timeout and
> eventually a watchdog timeout.
> When a product development completes, the vendors may
> select a different UIC command timeout as desired.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bao D. Nguyen <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> index 79f8cb3..4649e0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ enum {
>
> #define QCOM_UFS_MAX_GEAR 4
> #define QCOM_UFS_MAX_LANE 2
> +#define QCOM_UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS 2000
>
> enum {
> MODE_MIN,
> @@ -1111,6 +1112,8 @@ static int ufs_qcom_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> dev_warn(dev, "%s: failed to configure the testbus %d\n",
> __func__, err);
>
> + hba->uic_cmd_timeout = QCOM_UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS;
> +
> return 0;
>
> out_variant_clear:
Given the description of patch 1, the addressed issue is not specific to
a single vendor. Is that correct?
Since the described issue is only encountered during development, why to
modify the UIC command timeout unconditionally?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists