Hi Marc, Thank you so much for below suggestions. I will fix them all in next version. On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:51 +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > On 13/05/2019 16:36, Stanley Chu wrote: > > > Currently auto-hibern8 is activated if host supports > > auto-hibern8 capability. However no error handlings are existed thus > > this feature is kind of risky. > > This last sentence is not very idiomatic. > > I would suggest: > "However, error-handling is not implemented, which makes the feature > somewhat risky." > > > If "Hibernate Enter" or "Hibernate Exit" fail happens > > I would suggest: > If either "Hibernate Enter" or "Hibernate Exit" fail during ... > > > during auto-hibern8 flow, the corresponding interrupt > > "UIC_HIBERNATE_ENTER" or "UIC_HIBERNATE_EXIT" shall be raised > > according to UFS specification. > > > > This patch adds auto-hibern8 error handlings: > > error-handling > > > - Monitor "Hibernate Enter" and "Hibernate Exit" interrupts after > > auto-hibern8 feature is activated. > > I just want to take this opportunity to ask a rhetorical question. > > Who in the Great Heavens thought it would be a good idea to call the > feature "auto-hibern8" ? > > Was it really worth it to save 2 characters by writing "8" instead > of "ate" ? > > This bugs me so much that I just might send a patch to fix it up. As far as I know, the term "HIBERN8" is mentioned in all UFS related specifications, like UFS, UFSHCI, UniPro and M-PHY. So probably this abbreviation has existed for a long time. > > Regards. Thanks, Stanley
