[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12753be6-c69b-448d-a258-79221f4dbc7c@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:51:07 +0530
From: MANISH PANDEY <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Martin K.
Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
<quic_cang@...cinc.com>, <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: Add support for dumping MCQ
registers
On 3/18/2025 12:14 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:46:34AM +0530, Manish Pandey wrote:
>> This patch adds functionality to dump MCQ registers.
>> This will help in diagnosing issues related to MCQ
>> operations by providing detailed register dumps.
>>
>
> Same comment as previous patch. Also, make use of 75 column width.
>
will Update in next patch set.>> Signed-off-by: Manish Pandey
<quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Addressed Bart's review comments by adding explanations for the
>> in_task() and usleep_range() calls.
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Rebased patchsets.
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241025055054.23170-1-quic_mapa@quicinc.com/
>> ---
>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> index f5181773c0e5..fb9da04c0d35 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -1566,6 +1566,54 @@ int ufs_qcom_testbus_config(struct ufs_qcom_host *host)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void ufs_qcom_dump_mcq_hci_regs(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> +{
>> + /* sleep intermittently to prevent CPU hog during data dumps. */
>> + /* RES_MCQ_1 */
>> + ufshcd_dump_regs(hba, 0x0, 256 * 4, "MCQ HCI 1da0000-1da03f0 ");
>> + usleep_range(1000, 1100);
>
> If your motivation is just to not hog the CPU, use cond_resched().
>
> - Mani
>
The intention here is to introduce a specific delay between each dump.
Therefore, i would like to use usleep_range() instead of cond_resched().
Please let me know if i am getting it wrong..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists