Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <5b26c234d357512c0bffccf733d6ed8c5dd3a517.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Keep device power on only
 fWriteBoosterBufferFlushDuringHibernate == 1
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@samsung.com" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "beanhuo@micron.com" <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "tomas.winkler@intel.com" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
        "cang@codeaurora.org" <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:31:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB65750B6EF8B374476E255FA7FCF20@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20201130181143.5739-1-huobean@gmail.com>
         <20201130181143.5739-3-huobean@gmail.com>
         <BY5PR04MB6599826730BD3FB0E547E60587F30@BY5PR04MB6599.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
         <DM6PR04MB6575B7ECCEA7335B2CFC2AC4FCF20@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
         <2dafb87ff450776c0406311bb7e235e9816f6ecf.camel@gmail.com>
         <DM6PR04MB657551290696C7EBD8339328FCF20@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
         <2578a5fa2323f46b29dc8808b948ed5eaea6fbca.camel@gmail.com>
         <DM6PR04MB65750B6EF8B374476E255FA7FCF20@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 12:15 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > so, you agree the possiblity of failure  exists.
> 
> I was more relating to the lottery part.
It doesn't matter. even the possibility of winning a lottery is very
low, but still there is.
> > 
> > > Hence we need-not any extra logic protecting device management
> > > command failures.
> > 
> > what extra logic?
> > 
> > > 
> > > if reading the configuration pass correctly, and UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN
> > > is
> > > set,
> > 
> > 
> > UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN set is DRAM level. still in the cache.
> > 
> > > one should expect that any other functionality would work.
> > > 
> > 
> > No,  The programming will consume more power than reading, the
> > later setting will more possbile fail than reading.
> > 
> > > Otherwise, any non-standard behavior should be added with a
> > > quirk.
> > > 
> > 
> > NO, this is not what is standard or non-standard. This is
> > independent
> > of UFS device/controller. It is a software design. IMO, we didn't
> > deal
> > with programming status that is a potential bug. If having to
> > impose to
> > a component, do you think should be controller or device? Instead
> > of
> > addin a quirk, I prefer dropping this patch.
> 
> It seems you are adding some special treatment in case some device
> management command failed,
> A vanishingly unlikely event but a one that has significant impact
> over power consumption.

again, there is nothing with device. Obviously, you didn't do system
reliability testing in harsh environment. you don't believe this is WB
driver bug. I will send my next version patch with a fix-tag. even It
cannot merge. but I want to highlight it is a bug.

Thanks,
Bean