[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91e7f06c-7d13-d0bd-efee-4a62a429f727@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:23:49 -0700
From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>,
MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
SCSI <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] Revert "scsi: ufs: disable vccq if it's not needed
by UFS device"
On 2/4/2019 12:51 PM, Avri Altman wrote:
>
>> This reverts commit 60f0187031c05e04cbadffb62f557d0ff3564490.
>>
>> Calling ufshcd_set_vccq_rail_unused hangs my system.
>> It seems vccq is not *not* needed.
> This patch essentially implements the UFS_DEVICE_NO_VCCQ quirk,
> Which is needed for both Samsung and Hynix devices.
Needed, or optimal?
I'm rather sure Marc's device has a Samsung UFS chip, as do my devices
and we've seen nothing but benefit from the proposed revert.
> Once acked by those vendors, can be removed from the quirk list as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Avri
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists