[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c6fc92a0196d76d4130c5cac5fecd26c61f6593.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 05:48:17 +0000
From: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
To: "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>, "sh043.lee@...sung.com"
<sh043.lee@...sung.com>, "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
"storage.sec@...sung.com" <storage.sec@...sung.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "alim.akhtar@...sung.com"
<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "adrian.hunter@...el.com"
<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "martin.petersen@...cle.com"
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UFS: Make TM command timeout configurable from host side
On Mon, 2025-11-17 at 18:48 +0900, Seunghui Lee wrote:
> Thank you for your additional comment.
> By the way, in my humble opinion, it's not about tm cmd timeout,
> but about host register.
>
> If it must be changed, how much time do you think for it?
> I think that it's handled by different modification.
>
> Thanks,
> Seunghui Lee.
>
Hi Seunghui,
Yes, it is about the host register. I don’t have any ideas about
this for now, but a reasonable value should be at the millisecond
level.
I agree that this is another topic, so let’s leave it as is for now.
Thanks
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists