linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: ufs: qcom: update MODE_MAX cfg

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: <f0b62279-b4b6-4cb3-a808-fcd170a384eb@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:44:21 +0530
From: MANISH PANDEY <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
CC: "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>,
        <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>, <quic_bhaskarv@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_narepall@...cinc.com>, <quic_rampraka@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_cang@...cinc.com>, <quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: ufs: qcom: update MODE_MAX cfg_bw value


On 8/28/2024 7:01 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 06:55:26PM +0530, Manish Pandey wrote:
>> The cfg_bw value for max mode was incorrect for the Qualcomm SoC.
> 
> What do you mean by 'incorrect'? I extracted the value from downstream DTs. So
> it cannot be incorrect.
> 
> If you want to update it, please clearly provide the reason.

Hi Mani,

 From the snip from commit message
"The bandwidth values defined in ufs_qcom_bw_table struct are taken from
Qcom downstream vendor devicetree source and are calculated as per the
UFS3.1 Spec."

we have UFS 4.x devices, and ufs_qcom_bw_table is already updated with 
Gear 5 support (8db8f6ce556a - "scsi: ufs: qcom: Add missing 
interconnect bandwidth values for Gear 5"). So the max cfg_bw is not 
updated.

Also for UFS 3.x devices,
[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,        204800 },
[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,        409600 },
[MODE_MAX][0][0]                    = { 7643136,        307200 },

Please have a look for current max mode value(307200), it is even less 
than UFS_HS_G4 (409600). So it should be updated.


> And if this patch is addressing an issue, then a Fixes tag should be present. If
> you want to get it backported (if it is a critical fix), then stable list should
> be CCed.
> 
> - Mani
> 
My bad.. will update the patch.
also yes, we need it to be backported, i should cc add stable list.
Thanks for guidance.

>> Update it to the correct value for cfg_bw max mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Manish Pandey <quic_mapa@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> index c87fdc849c62..ecdfff2456e3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static const struct __ufs_qcom_bw_table {
>>   	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,	204800 },
>>   	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,	409600 },
>>   	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G5][UFS_LANE_2] = { 5836800,	819200 },
>> -	[MODE_MAX][0][0]		    = { 7643136,	307200 },
>> +	[MODE_MAX][0][0]		    = { 7643136,	819200 },
>>   };
>>   
>>   static void ufs_qcom_get_default_testbus_cfg(struct ufs_qcom_host *host);
>> -- 
>> 2.17.1
>>
>