linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: qcom: Update the UIC Command Timeout

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a6950702-536c-af82-4eae-6f9cc2c3baaa@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 22:42:14 -0700
From: "Bao D. Nguyen" <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "quic_cang@...cinc.com" <quic_cang@...cinc.com>,
        "quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com"
	<quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <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 5/22/2024 8:18 PM, Avri Altman wrote:
>> On 5/22/24 13:56, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2024 11:18 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> Since the described issue is only encountered during development, why to
>>>> modify the UIC command timeout unconditionally?
>>>
>>> The vendors can enjoy the default 500ms UIC timeout if they prefer.
>>> As long as they don't write to hba->uic_cmd_timeout in the vendor's
>> initialization routine, the default value of 500ms will be used.
>>
>> Since this issue is not vendor specific, I think it would be better to
>> modify the UFSHCI core driver only. Has it been considered to introduce a
>> kernel module parameter for setting the UIC command timeout instead of the
>> approach of this patch? As you probably know there are multiple mechanisms
>> for specifying kernel module parameters, e.g. the bootargs parameter in the
>> device tree.
> Since the problem statement is "During product development...", why not just a debugfs?

Hi Avri, if I am not mistaken, debugfs is not available at the initial 
stage of ufs probe/init time right?

> 
> Thanks,
> Avri
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>