On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 12:15 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > so, you agree the possiblity of failure exists. > > I was more relating to the lottery part. It doesn't matter. even the possibility of winning a lottery is very low, but still there is. > > > > > Hence we need-not any extra logic protecting device management > > > command failures. > > > > what extra logic? > > > > > > > > if reading the configuration pass correctly, and UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN > > > is > > > set, > > > > > > UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN set is DRAM level. still in the cache. > > > > > one should expect that any other functionality would work. > > > > > > > No, The programming will consume more power than reading, the > > later setting will more possbile fail than reading. > > > > > Otherwise, any non-standard behavior should be added with a > > > quirk. > > > > > > > NO, this is not what is standard or non-standard. This is > > independent > > of UFS device/controller. It is a software design. IMO, we didn't > > deal > > with programming status that is a potential bug. If having to > > impose to > > a component, do you think should be controller or device? Instead > > of > > addin a quirk, I prefer dropping this patch. > > It seems you are adding some special treatment in case some device > management command failed, > A vanishingly unlikely event but a one that has significant impact > over power consumption. again, there is nothing with device. Obviously, you didn't do system reliability testing in harsh environment. you don't believe this is WB driver bug. I will send my next version patch with a fix-tag. even It cannot merge. but I want to highlight it is a bug. Thanks, Bean
