[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB657599A46A10F959FCC23485FC909@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:35:27 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Caleb Connolly <caleb@...nolly.tech>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "ejb@...ux.ibm.com" <ejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
"cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
"beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
"jaegeuk@...nel.org" <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
"asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/3] scsi: ufshcd: use a function to calculate versions
> Hi Avri,
>
> On 10/03/2021 4:34 pm, Avri Altman wrote:
> >> @@ -9298,10 +9291,7 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void
> __iomem
> >> *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
> >> /* Get UFS version supported by the controller */
> >> hba->ufs_version = ufshcd_get_ufs_version(hba);
> >>
> >> - if ((hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_10) &&
> >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_11) &&
> >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_20) &&
> >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21))
> >> + if (hba->ufs_version < ufshci_version(1, 0))
> >> dev_err(hba->dev, "invalid UFS version 0x%x\n",
> >> hba->ufs_version);
> > Here you replaces the specific allowable values, with an expression
> > That doesn't really reflects those values.
>
> I took this approach based on feedback from previous patches:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> scsi/d1b23943b6b3ae6c1f6af041cc592932@...eaurora.org/
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/25/159
>
>
> Patch 3 of this series removes this check entirely, as it is neither
> accurate or useful.
I noticed that.
>
> The driver does not fail when printing this error, nor is the list of
> "valid" UFS versions here kept up to date, I struggle to see a situation
> in which that error message would actually be helpful. Responses to
> previous patches (above) that added UFS 3.0 to the list have all
> suggested that removing this check is a more sensible approach.
OK.
Thanks,
Avri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists