[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f5a8742-b25d-d6b3-c6a4-1c119a94d569@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:23:13 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>, mani@...nel.org,
quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, quic_xiaosenh@...cinc.com,
quic_cang@...cinc.com, quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com,
quic_rampraka@...cinc.com, quic_richardp@...cinc.com,
stanley.chu@...iatek.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
avri.altman@....com, beanhuo@...ron.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Jinyoung Choi <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/16] ufs: core: Probe for ext_iid support
On 9/22/22 18:05, Asutosh Das wrote:
> + hba->mcq_capabilities = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_MCQCAP);
What value is reported when reading the REG_MCQCAP register on an UFSHCI
3.0 controller? -1 or 0?
> + hba->ext_iid_sup = (hba->mcq_capabilities & MASK_EXT_IID_SUPPORT) >>
> + EXT_IID_CAP_SHIFT;
[ ... ]
> + if (dev_info->wspecversion < 0x400)
> + goto out;
Isn't this version check superfluous? Only UFSHCI 4.0 controllers should
support the extended IID feature.
> + ext_ufs_feature = get_unaligned_be32(desc_buf + DEVICE_DESC_PARAM_EXT_UFS_FEATURE_SUP);
The above change introduces a third instance of this code. Please
introduce a helper function that does something like the following and
replace the above line with a call to that helper function:
if (hba->desc_size[QUERY_DESC_IDN_DEVICE] <
DEVICE_DESC_PARAM_EXT_UFS_FEATURE_SUP + 4)
return 0;
return get_unaligned_be32(desc_buf +
DEVICE_DESC_PARAM_EXT_UFS_FEATURE_SUP);
> +out:
> + dev_info->b_ext_iid_en = !!ext_iid_en;
Please remove "!!". This conversion happens implicitly when assigning to
a boolean variable.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists