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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception
 handling
To:     Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
References: <20210901123707.5014-1-avri.altman@wdc.com>
 <20210901123707.5014-3-avri.altman@wdc.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Message-ID: <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:39:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210901123707.5014-3-avri.altman@wdc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need
> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that.  Each chipset vendor can
> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some
> Privet implementation.

Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme 
temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of 
making each vendor come up with a different implementation.

> +	void	(*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status);

Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of 
that vop.

Thanks,

Bart.