Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <60542301-e77f-ad26-e249-29d42f446d74@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 13:05:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ufs: poll pmc until another pa request is completed
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com,
        avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com,
        adrian.hunter@intel.com, sc.suh@samsung.com, hy50.seo@samsung.com,
        sh425.lee@samsung.com, bhoon95.kim@samsung.com,
        kwangwon.min@samsung.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com
References: <CGME20230425012857epcas2p45eaa3f5f87de424bbf951b22653b3e70@epcas2p4.samsung.com>
 <1682385635-43601-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <1682385635-43601-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/24/23 18:20, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> @@ -4138,6 +4141,61 @@ int ufshcd_dme_get_attr(struct ufs_hba *hba, u32 attr_sel,
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ufshcd_dme_get_attr);
>   
> +static int __ufshcd_poll_uic_pwr(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct uic_command *cmd,
> +		struct completion *cnf)

What does the name "cnf" mean? To me it seems to be a weird name for a 
completion function pointer.

> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	int ret;
> +	ktime_t timeout;
> +	u32 mode = cmd->argument3;

Is my understanding correct that __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd() does not modify 
cmd->argument3? If so, why does this function copy cmd->argument3 and 
re-assign cmd->argument3?

> +	timeout = ktime_add_ms(ktime_get(), UIC_PA_RDY_TIMEOUT);

"deadline" is probably a better name for this variable than "timeout". 
Additionally, please consider using jiffies since I think that the 
accuracy of the jiffies counter is sufficient in this context.

> +	do {
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +		hba->active_uic_cmd = NULL;

Is my understanding correct that it is guaranteed that 
hba->active_uic_cmd is NULL here? If so, what is the purpose of the 
above statement?

> +		ret = __ufshcd_send_uic_cmd(hba, cmd, true);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(hba->dev,
> +				"pwr ctrl cmd 0x%x with mode 0x%x uic error %d\n",
> +				cmd->command, cmd->argument3, ret);
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* This value is heuristic */
> +		if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&cmd->done,
> +		    msecs_to_jiffies(5))) {

Please align msecs_to_jiffies(5) with the first argument ("&cmd->done").

> +			ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> +			dev_err(hba->dev,
> +				"pwr ctrl cmd 0x%x with mode 0x%x timeout\n",
> +				cmd->command, cmd->argument3);
> +			if (cmd->cmd_active)
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			dev_info(hba->dev, "%s: pwr ctrl cmd has already been completed\n", __func__);
> +		}
> +
> +		/* retry for only busy cases */

Please fix the word order in the above comment (for only -> only for)

Thanks,

Bart.