Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] scsi: ufs: core: Reduce the sleep before vcc can be powered on

[Peter Wang (王信友)]

On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 12:00 -0700, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> I have discussed with the major ufs vendors (Samsung, Kioxia, Micron,
> and SK Hynix) via emails. They are all in agreement that 2ms is good.
> I
> did check the current device's datasheets and 1ms is what their
> specifications require. I admit that I may have missed some very old
> ufs
> device's datasheets. However, I take the words of the ufs vendor's
> engineering teams and the current device's datasheets that the 2ms is
> good for their devices and try to improve the potentially
> conservative
> 5ms delay parameter.
> 
> Thanks, Bao
> 
> 
> 

Hi Bao,

Yes, I am concerned that legacy UFS devices may encounter errors
when upgrading the kernel if the delay is not sufficient.

Furthermore, the vendor claims that 2ms is sufficient. Is this
based on a typical scenario? or should we be concerned about 
the worst-case scenario? I am also worried that the worst-case
delay may not be enough.

Thanks
Peter