On 8/9/21 12:46 AM, Kiwoong Kim wrote: >> How about extending the UFS spec instead of adding a non-standard >> mechanism in a driver that is otherwise based on a standard? > > It seems to be a great approach but I wonder if extending for the events > that all the SoC vendors require in the spec is recommendable. > Because I think there is quite possible that many of those things are > originated for architectural reasons. Has the interrupt mechanism supported by this patch series already been implemented or is it still possible to change the ASIC design? In the latter case, I propose the following: * Drop the new interrupt. * Instead of raising an interrupt if the UFS controller detects an inconsistency, report this via a check condition code, e.g. LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, HARD RESET REQUIRED (there may be a better choice). The above approach has the advantage that it does not slow down the UFS interrupt handler. Thanks, Bart.
