linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the UFSHCI 4.0 spec

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: <20240816050306.GB2331@thinkpad>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:33:06 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Kyoungrul Kim <k831.kim@...sung.com>,
	Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the
 UFSHCI 4.0 spec

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:09:06AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/14/24 10:16 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
> >   	/*
> >   	 * The UFSHCI 3.0 specification does not define MCQ_SUPPORT and
> > -	 * LSDB_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
> > +	 * LSDBS_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
> >   	 * means we can simply read values regardless of version.
> >   	 */
> 
> Hmm ... neither MCQ_SUPPORT nor LSDBS_SUPPORT occurs in the UFSHCI 4.0
> specification. I found the acronyms "MCQS" and "LSDBS" in that
> specification. I propose either not to modify the above comment or to use
> the acronyms used in the UFSHCI 4.0 standard.
> 
> >   	hba->mcq_sup = FIELD_GET(MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> > @@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static inline int ufshcd_hba_capabilities(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> >   	 * 0h: legacy single doorbell support is available
> >   	 * 1h: indicate that legacy single doorbell support has been removed
> >   	 */
> > -	hba->lsdb_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> > +	hba->lsdbs_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> >   	if (!hba->mcq_sup)
> >   		return 0;
> 
> The final "s" in "lsdbs" stands for "support" so there are now two
> references to the word "support" in the "lsdbs_sup" member name. Isn't
> the original structure member name ("lsdb_sup") better because it doesn't
> have that redundancy?
> 
> >   	MASK_CRYPTO_SUPPORT			= 0x10000000,
> > -	MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
> > +	MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
> >   	MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT			= 0x40000000,
> 
> Same comment here: in the constant name "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" there are
> two references to the word "support". Isn't the original name better?
> Additionally, this change introduces an inconsistency between the
> constant names "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" and "MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT". The former
> name includes the acronym from the spec (LSDBS) but the latter name not
> (MCQS). Wouldn't it be better to leave this change out?
> 

Hmm, agree. My intention was to align with the spec, but then the _SUPPORT
suffix is screwing it up :/

I'll drop the patch then.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்