lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v3 1/3] scsi: ufshcd: use a function to calculate versions
Date
> Hi Avri,
>
> On 10/03/2021 4:34 pm, Avri Altman wrote:
> >> @@ -9298,10 +9291,7 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void
> __iomem
> >> *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
> >> /* Get UFS version supported by the controller */
> >> hba->ufs_version = ufshcd_get_ufs_version(hba);
> >>
> >> - 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))
> >> + if (hba->ufs_version < ufshci_version(1, 0))
> >> dev_err(hba->dev, "invalid UFS version 0x%x\n",
> >> hba->ufs_version);
> > Here you replaces the specific allowable values, with an expression
> > That doesn't really reflects those values.
>
> I took this approach based on feedback from previous patches:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> scsi/d1b23943b6b3ae6c1f6af041cc592932@codeaurora.org/
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/25/159
>
>
> Patch 3 of this series removes this check entirely, as it is neither
> accurate or useful.
I noticed that.

>
> The driver does not fail when printing this error, nor is the list of
> "valid" UFS versions here kept up to date, I struggle to see a situation
> in which that error message would actually be helpful. Responses to
> previous patches (above) that added UFS 3.0 to the list have all
> suggested that removing this check is a more sensible approach.
OK.

Thanks,
Avri
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-11 08:37    [W:0.060 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site