linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: ufs-mediatek: Add UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_LSDBS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZsZc1jYL8wSZZYSw@kuroko.kudu-justice.ts.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:32:06 +0200
From: Mary Guillemard <mary@...y.zone>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manisadhasivam.linux@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
	Stanley Jhu <chu.stanley@...il.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: ufs-mediatek: Add UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_LSDBS_CAP

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 02:50:58PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/19/24 11:09 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 08:17:10PM +0200, Mary Guillemard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 05:38:52PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:24:42AM +0200, Mary Guillemard wrote:
> > > > > +	if (host->caps & UFS_MTK_CAP_DISABLE_MCQ)
> > > > 
> > > > How can this be the deciding factor? You said above that the issue is with
> > > > MT8183 SoC. So why not just use the quirk only for that platform?
> > > 
> > > So my current assumption is that it also affect other Mediatek SoCs
> > > that are also based on UFS 2.1 spec but I cannot check this.
> > > 
> > > Instead, we know that if MCQ isn't supported, we must fallback to LSDB
> > > as there is no other ways to drive the device.
> > > 
> > > UFS_MTK_CAP_DISABLE_MCQ (mediatek,ufs-disable-mcq) being unused upstream,
> > > I think that's an acceptable fix.
> > > 
> > 
> > If you use this quirk, then you need to use the corresponding DT property. But
> > using the 'mediatek,ufs-disable-mcq' property for 2.1 controller doesn't make
> > sense as MCQ is for controllers >= 4.0.
> > 
> > > Another way to handle this would be to add a new dt property and add it
> > > to ufs_mtk_host_caps but I feel that my approach should be enough.
> > > 
> > 
> > No need to add a DT property. Just use the SoC specific compatible as I did for
> > SM8550 SoC.
> 
> Mary, do you plan to implement Manivannan's feedback?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
>

Hello Bart,

I think that considering Peter's reply, explicitly checking for the
MT8183 controller isn't required.

I also think it could be required for at least the MT8192 and MT8195
considering they are apparently also based on UFS 2.1 spec [1].

However, if you want me to add an explicit check, I will happily send a
v2.

Thanks,

Mary.

[1]https://corp.mediatek.com/news-events/press-releases/mediatek-announces-new-mt8192-and-mt8195-chipsets-designed-for-next-generation-of-chromebooks