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;
Sender: asutoshd=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 30BC6C4338F
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception
 handling
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        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>
 <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org>
From:   "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <49a3985a-4d4d-006a-499e-2270bd7db250@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:40:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <46a7ea4f-2c6b-7798-5845-ad47c64617dd@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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.
> 
I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is 
defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd.
There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do 
depending upon use-case, I imagine.

>> +    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.


-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project