linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 0/6] scsi: ufs: qcom: Align programming sequence as per HW spec

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: <20230901151805.GR818859@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2023 08:18:05 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
To:     Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
CC:     Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>, <mani@...nel.org>,
        <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <quic_cang@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 0/6] scsi: ufs: qcom: Align programming sequence as
 per HW spec

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:56:05AM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 05:13:30PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > This patch aligns programming sequence as per Qualcomm UFS
> > hardware specification.
> 
> reading this series, it is difficult for me to understand as a user of
> the driver if this should have any noticeable effect.
> 
> Some of the patches mention that there is no functional change, some
> only say align with the HPG but change programming sequence, frequency,
> etc if I understand correctly on a quick glance.
> 
> I think being a bit verbose in some of the patches with respect to
> explaining the effect of the patch (or lack of a noticeable effect)
> would be a beneficial improvement to this series if there's another
> version.
> 
> I agree that aligning with the HPG instead of doing some undefined
> sequence is a good idea, I'm just reading some of the changes and
> thinking "I have no idea if this is going to fix something (no Fixes:
> tag but it almost sounds like one), will this improve something, or will this
> just change the programming sequence to a known and recommended
> sequence?".
> 

Very valid feedback, Andrew.

Correct or not, there are a fair amount of users out there who runs the
current implementation. Changes to that should be described in a way
that doesn't depend on inside-knowledge.

Regards,
Bjorn