linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: Remove support for old UFSHCI versions

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:
 <DM6PR04MB657551A7FAB39883B3D890F1FC062@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:06:39 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, "James E . J . Bottomley"
	<jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: Remove support for old UFSHCI versions

> On 4/6/24 11:04 PM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > UFS spec version 2.1 was published more than 10 years ago. It is
> > vanishingly unlikely that even there are out there platforms that uses
> > earlier host controllers, let alone that those ancient platforms will
> > ever run a V6.10 kernel.  To be extra cautious, leave out support for
> > UFSHCI2.0 as well, and just remove support of host controllers prior
> > to UFS2.0.
> >
> > This patch removes some legacy tuning calls that no longer apply.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>
> > Acked-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c   | 158 +++---------------------------------
> >   drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c |   3 +-
> >   include/ufs/ufshcd.h        |   2 -
> >   include/ufs/ufshci.h        |  13 +--
> >   4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index 62c8575f2c67..c72ef87ea867 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -748,8 +748,6 @@ static int ufshcd_wait_for_register(struct ufs_hba
> *hba, u32 reg, u32 mask,
> >    */
> >   static inline u32 ufshcd_get_intr_mask(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> >   {
> > -     if (hba->ufs_version == ufshci_version(1, 0))
> > -             return INTERRUPT_MASK_ALL_VER_10;
> >       if (hba->ufs_version <= ufshci_version(2, 0))
> >               return INTERRUPT_MASK_ALL_VER_11;
> 
> Is the patch description in sync with the patch itself? The patch description says
> that support for UFSHCI 2.0 is removed while the above if-condition only
> evaluates to true for UFSHCI 2.0 and older controllers.
The cover letter say:
- leave UFSHCI2.0 out of this change (Bart).

And the commit log say:
To be extra cautious, leave out support for
UFSHCI2.0 as well, and just remove support of host controllers prior
to UFS2.0.

Isn't that clear enough?


Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.