On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need
to be taken. So add a designated vop for that. Each chipset vendor can
decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some
Privet implementation.
Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme
temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of
making each vendor come up with a different implementation.
I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is
defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd.
There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do
depending upon use-case, I imagine.
+ void (*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status);
Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of
that vop.
Thanks,
Bart.
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
