linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: qcom: Clarify the comment of core

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: <hm2h3uniy75vkjlnk62k3y4bz44khrdwxlk47t3lndc6c3yd2x@sbwcuvrjar5n>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:57:20 -0600
From: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, 
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, 
	Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: qcom: Clarify the comment of core_reset
 property

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 01:22:05PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> core_reset is not an optional property for the platforms supported in
> upstream. Only for the non-upstreamed legacy platforms it is optional.
> But somehow a few of the upstreamed platforms do not pass this property
> by mistake.
> 
> So clarify the comment to make it clear that even though core_reset is
> required, it is kept as optional to support the DTs that do not pass this
> property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> index 39eef470f8fa..32760506dfeb 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,11 @@ static int ufs_qcom_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  	host->hba = hba;
>  	ufshcd_set_variant(hba, host);
>  
> -	/* Setup the optional reset control of HCI */
> +	/*
> +	 * Even though core_reset is required on all platforms, some DTs never
> +	 * passed this property. So we have to keep it optional for supporting
> +	 * them.
> +	 */

Any desire to print a warning if !host->core_reset? I'll defer to
Qualcomm to review since they can confirm the accuracy past Can's
comment, but this looks good to me for what its worth.

>  	host->core_reset = devm_reset_control_get_optional(hba->dev, "rst");
>  	if (IS_ERR(host->core_reset)) {
>  		err = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(host->core_reset),
> 
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
>