[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231214050943.GC2938@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:39:43 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc: martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
andersson@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_cang@...cinc.com, ahalaney@...hat.com,
quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] scsi: ufs: qcom: Code cleanups
On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:42:31PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 8.12.2023 07:58, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This series has code some cleanups to the Qcom UFS driver. No functional
> > change. In this version, I've removed code supporting legacy controllers
> > ver < 2.0, as the respective platforms were never supported in upstream.
> >
> > Tested on: RB5 development board based on Qcom SM8250 SoC.
> >
> > - Mani
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >
> > * Collected review tags
> > * Fixed the comments from Andrew
> > * Added a few more patches, most notably one removing the code for old
> > controllers (ver < v2.0)
> FWIW i found this snipped from a downstream commit from 2014:
>
> 8084 : 1.1.1
> 8994v1 : 1.2.0
> 8994v2 : 1.3.0
>
> I'm yet to see any 8994 production device utilizing UFS (it wasn't
> very good or affordable in 2014/15 IIRC), so I think it's gtg.
>
Thanks for digging! I was told that SoCs based on UFS 1.x controllers were not
widely used in production, though I don't know why.
- Mani
> Konrad
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists