Messages in this thread | | | From | Jose Abreu <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version | Date | Mon, 27 Apr 2020 07:50:32 +0000 |
| |
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Date: Apr/25/2020, 12:10:56 (UTC+00:00)
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:36:56PM +0200, Jose Abreu wrote: > > Add a define for UFS version 3.0 and do not print an error message upon > > probe when using this version. > > This doesn't really scale. Version checks only make sense for a minimum > supported version. Rejecting newer versions is just a bad idea. > > > @@ -8441,7 +8441,8 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void __iomem *mmio_base, unsigned int irq) > > if ((hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_10) && > > (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_11) && > > (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_20) && > > - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21)) > > + (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21) && > > + (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_30)) > > i.e. this should become > > if (hba->ufs_version < UFSHCI_VERSION_10) > > as an additional cleanup I think it makes more sense t use a UFSHCI_VER() > macro similar to KERNEL_VERSION() or NVME_VS() instead of adding a new > define for every version.
Yeah, unfortunately I don't think this can be done because of this:
enum { UFSHCI_VERSION_10 = 0x00010000, /* 1.0 */ UFSHCI_VERSION_11 = 0x00010100, /* 1.1 */ UFSHCI_VERSION_20 = 0x00000200, /* 2.0 */ UFSHCI_VERSION_21 = 0x00000210, /* 2.1 */ };
So, version 1.0 and 1.1 have higher values of 2.0 and 2.1 in terms of absolute value.
--- Thanks, Jose Miguel Abreu
| |