linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: qcom: Add support for scaling interconnects

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <43cd0057-c6d8-bc92-08f4-d767336d2cfe@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:09:52 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: qcom: Add support for scaling
 interconnects

On 7/31/23 07:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> +struct __ufs_qcom_bw_table {
> +	u32 mem_bw;
> +	u32 cfg_bw;
> +} ufs_qcom_bw_table[MODE_MAX + 1][QCOM_UFS_MAX_GEAR + 1][QCOM_UFS_MAX_LANE + 1] = {
> +	[MODE_MIN][0][0]		   = { 0,		0 }, /* Bandwidth values in KB/s */
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 922,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1844,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 3688,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 7376,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1844,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 3688,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 7376,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 14752,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 127796,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 255591,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1492582,	102400 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 2915200,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 255591,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 511181,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,	409600 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 149422,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 298189,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1492582,	102400 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 2915200,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 298189,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 596378,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,	409600 },
> +	[MODE_MAX][0][0]		    = { 7643136,	307200 },
> +};

Why has the above data structure not been declared as 'static const'?

Thanks,

Bart.