linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver

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: <692cd503-5b14-4be6-831d-d8e9c282a95e@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:28:51 +0530
From:   Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@...cinc.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        "Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, <chu.stanley@...il.com>
CC:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <quic_cang@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs
 driver

On 12/5/2023 12:30 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/4/23 06:30, Maramaina Naresh wrote:
>> +    u32    (*config_qos_vote)(struct ufs_hba *hba);
> 
> Please remove the above callback since this patch series does not
> introduce any instances of this callback.
> 

Sure Bart, i will take care of this comment in next patch set.
If some SoC vendor have a different qos vote value then this callback 
can be added in future.

>> +
>> +    /* This capability allows the host controller driver to use the 
>> PM QoS
>> +     * feature.
>> +     */
>> +    UFSHCD_CAP_PM_QOS                = 1 << 13,
>>   };
> 
> Why does it depend on the host driver whether or not PM QoS is
> enabled? Why isn't it enabled unconditionally?

For some platform vendors power KPI might be more important than random 
io KPI. Hence this flag is disabled by default and can be enabled based 
on platform requirement.

> 
>> + * @pm_qos_req: PM QoS request handle
>> + * @pm_qos_init: flag to check if pm qos init completed
>>    */
> 
> Documentation for pm_qos_init is missing.
> 
Sorry, i didn't get your comment, i have already added documentation for 
@pm_qos_init, @pm_qos_req variable as above. Do you want me to add this 
information some where else as well?



>>   struct ufs_hba {
>>       void __iomem *mmio_base;
>> @@ -1076,6 +1089,9 @@ struct ufs_hba {
>>       struct ufs_hw_queue *uhq;
>>       struct ufs_hw_queue *dev_cmd_queue;
>>       struct ufshcd_mcq_opr_info_t mcq_opr[OPR_MAX];
>> +    struct pm_qos_request pm_qos_req;
>> +    bool pm_qos_init;
>> +    u32 qos_vote;
> 
> Please rename "pm_qos_init" into "pm_qos_initialized".
> 

Sure Bart, i will take care of this comment in next patch set.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 

Thanks,
Naresh.