[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221128142904.GC62721@thinkpad>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:59:04 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
To: Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>
Cc: quic_cang@...cinc.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com,
quic_xiaosenh@...cinc.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com,
eddie.huang@...iatek.com, daejun7.park@...sung.com,
bvanassche@....org, avri.altman@....com, beanhuo@...ron.com,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jinyoung Choi <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/16] ufs: core: Introduce Multi-circular queue
capability
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 08:10:16PM -0800, Asutosh Das wrote:
> Add support to check for MCQ capability in the UFSHC.
> Add a module parameter to disable MCQ if needed.
>
> Co-developed-by: Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>
Couple of nitpicks below, with those addressed:
Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 66b797f..08be8ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -89,6 +89,33 @@
> /* Polling time to wait for fDeviceInit */
> #define FDEVICEINIT_COMPL_TIMEOUT 1500 /* millisecs */
>
> +/* UFSHC 4.0 compliant HC support this mode, refer param_set_mcq_mode() */
> +static bool use_mcq_mode = true;
> +
> +static inline bool is_mcq_supported(struct ufs_hba *hba)
Please get rid of inline keyword and let the compiler handle it.
> +{
> + return hba->mcq_sup && use_mcq_mode;
> +}
> +
> +static int param_set_mcq_mode(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = param_set_bool(val, kp);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct kernel_param_ops mcq_mode_ops = {
> + .set = param_set_mcq_mode,
> + .get = param_get_bool,
> +};
> +
> +module_param_cb(use_mcq_mode, &mcq_mode_ops, &use_mcq_mode, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(mcq_mode, "Control MCQ mode for UFSHCI 4.0 controllers");
Is it ok to mention only 4.0? What about future revisions?
Thanks,
Mani
> +
> #define ufshcd_toggle_vreg(_dev, _vreg, _on) \
> ({ \
> int _ret; \
> @@ -2258,6 +2285,10 @@ static inline int ufshcd_hba_capabilities(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> if (err)
> dev_err(hba->dev, "crypto setup failed\n");
>
> + hba->mcq_sup = FIELD_GET(MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> + if (!hba->mcq_sup)
> + return err;
> +
> hba->mcq_capabilities = ufshcd_readl(hba, REG_MCQCAP);
> hba->ext_iid_sup = FIELD_GET(MASK_EXT_IID_SUPPORT,
> hba->mcq_capabilities);
> diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> index aec37cb9..70c0f9f 100644
> --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> @@ -832,6 +832,7 @@ struct ufs_hba_monitor {
> * @complete_put: whether or not to call ufshcd_rpm_put() from inside
> * ufshcd_resume_complete()
> * @ext_iid_sup: is EXT_IID is supported by UFSHC
> + * @mcq_sup: is mcq supported by UFSHC
> */
> struct ufs_hba {
> void __iomem *mmio_base;
> @@ -982,6 +983,7 @@ struct ufs_hba {
> u32 luns_avail;
> bool complete_put;
> bool ext_iid_sup;
> + bool mcq_sup;
> };
>
> /* Returns true if clocks can be gated. Otherwise false */
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists