[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0555169e-2552-41d8-a515-8c394118cec7@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 13:12:39 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] scsi: ufs: Maximum RTT supported by the host
driver
On 5/26/24 01:16, Avri Altman wrote:
> - rtt = min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->nortt);
> + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->max_num_rtt)
> + rtt = hba->vops->max_num_rtt;
> + else
> + rtt = min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->nortt);
> +
Shouldn't what the controller supports be compared with what the device supports,
e.g. as follows?
min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->vops->max_num_rtt ? : hba->nortt);
> struct ufs_hba_variant_ops {
> const char *name;
> + int max_num_rtt;
Hmm ... why 'int' instead of an unsigned type? If the type would be changed
into 'u8' (the type of rtt_cap) then the above min_t() can be changed into
min().
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists