[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 15:28:33 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: j-young.choi@...sung.com, ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: ufs: wb: renaming & cleanups functions
On 7/1/22 00:46, Jinyoung CHOI wrote:
> The Function names were changed clearly, and the location of the
> comments was modified and added properly.
>
> In addition, the conditional test of the toggle functions was
> different, so it was modified.
>
> Unnecessary logs were removed and modified appropriately.
There are too many changes in this patch. Please split this patch, e.g.
one patch that introduces ufshcd_is_wb_buf_flush_allowed(), one patch
that renames ufshcd_wb_toggle_flush_during_h8() and its arguments and
another patch that renames ufshcd_wb_config().
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> index 0a088b47d557..6253606b93b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ static ssize_t wb_on_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> * If the platform supports UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_SCALING, turn WB
> * on/off will be done while clock scaling up/down.
> */
> - dev_warn(dev, "To control WB through wb_on is not allowed!\n");
> + dev_warn(dev, "It is not allowed to control WB!\n");
I suggest to change "control" into "configure".
> static void ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> @@ -1289,9 +1288,10 @@ static int ufshcd_devfreq_scale(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool scale_up)
> }
> }
>
> - /* Enable Write Booster if we have scaled up else disable it */
> downgrade_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
> is_writelock = false;
> +
> + /* Enable Write Booster if we have scaled up else disable it */
> ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, scale_up);
The above change could be yet another patch.
> out_unprepare:
> @@ -5715,6 +5715,9 @@ static int __ufshcd_wb_toggle(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool set, enum flag_idn idn)
> enum query_opcode opcode = set ? UPIU_QUERY_OPCODE_SET_FLAG :
> UPIU_QUERY_OPCODE_CLEAR_FLAG;
>
> + if (!ufshcd_is_wb_allowed(hba))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
Moving the ufshcd_is_wb_allowed() call from ufshcd_wb_toggle() into
__ufshcd_wb_toggle() should be yet another patch.
> - if (!(enable ^ hba->dev_info.wb_enabled))
> + if (hba->dev_info.wb_enabled == enable)
> return 0;
This change is independent of the rest of this patch and hence could be
yet another patch.
> - dev_info(hba->dev, "%s Write Booster %s\n",
> - __func__, enable ? "enabled" : "disabled");
Why has this code been left out?
> - ret = __ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, set,
> - QUERY_FLAG_IDN_WB_BUFF_FLUSH_DURING_HIBERN8);
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: WB-Buf Flush during H8 %s failed: %d\n",
> - __func__, set ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
> - return;
> - }
> - dev_dbg(hba->dev, "%s WB-Buf Flush during H8 %s\n",
> - __func__, set ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> + ret = __ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, enable,
> + QUERY_FLAG_IDN_WB_BUFF_FLUSH_DURING_HIBERN8);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: failed to %s WB buf flush during H8 %d\n",
> + __func__, enable ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
The above error message is worse than the original error message. Please
either keep the original message or change it into something better than
the original, e.g. "Failed to %s WB buffer flushing during H8".
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists