[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c933571d-a87c-44b9-af44-4fd9230cb319@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:51:01 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>, Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "scsi: ufs: core: Probe for EXT_IID support"
On 1/1/25 5:41 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> Although added a while ago, to date no one make use of ext_iid,
> specifically incorporates it in the upiu header. Therefore, remove it
> as it is just a dead code.
Hi Avri,
Although the patch itself looks fine to me, is the description
accurate? "dead code" means code that is not executed. I think that
the code removed by this patch gets executed?
> diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshci.h b/include/ufs/ufshci.h
> index 27364c4a6ef9..155f0801e907 100644
> --- a/include/ufs/ufshci.h
> +++ b/include/ufs/ufshci.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ enum {
> /* UFSHCI Registers */
> enum {
> REG_CONTROLLER_CAPABILITIES = 0x00,
> - REG_MCQCAP = 0x04,
> + REG_MCQCAP = 0x04,
Is this whitespace-only change really necessary?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists