> > 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 strange as it may be, this is not the product of the creative mind Of the original driver's authors, nor even JEDEC guys which uses it in their specs (both UFS & HCI). This strange amalgam dates back to the mipi-unipro terminology. Thanks, Avri
