[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <430e6dfd-4a7d-44d9-9dd6-64d99c8bc91e@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:39:09 +0000
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
avri.altman@....com, bvanassche@....org, krzk@...nel.org
Cc: andre.draszik@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
willmcvicker@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiggers@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] scsi: ufs: exynos: remove tx_dif_p_nsec from
exynosauto_ufs_drv_init()
On 10/25/24 2:14 PM, Peter Griffin wrote:
> Firstly exynosauto sets EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_SKIP_CONFIG_PHY_ATTR so setting
exynosauto and gs101, the users of exynosauto_ufs_drv_init().
> tx_dif_p_nsec has no effect.
Both set EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_SKIP_CONFIG_PHY_ATTR, the conclusion is correct
for gs101 as well.
With this addressed:
Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
nitpick/personal preference: I wouldn't use the commit body as a
continuation of the subject. I would specify what the commit does in the
body as well. No need to address.
Also, as a side note, I thought of removing tx_dif_p_nsec from
exynos7_uic_attr, but it seems that this struct is used by
exynos_ufs_drvs as well, which don't set
EXYNOS_UFS_OPT_SKIP_CONFIG_PHY_ATTR. That's a little confusing, I guess
it's more clear if each driver has its own required settings specified.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists