From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
Joao Lima <Joao.Lima@synopsys.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 04:10:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200425111056.GA3384@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c4281080538b74ca39cedb9112ffe71bf7a80b5.1587727756.git.Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-25 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-24 11:36 [PATCH 0/5] scsi: ufs: Misc improvements for DesignWare drivers and UFS Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:36 ` [PATCH 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:57 ` Winkler, Tomas
2020-04-24 12:08 ` Alim Akhtar
2020-04-25 11:10 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-04-27 7:50 ` Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:36 ` [PATCH 2/5] scsi: ufs: Rename tc-dwc-g210 -> tc-dwc Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:36 ` [PATCH 3/5] scsi: ufs: tc-dwc-pci: Use PDI ID to match Test Chip type Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 12:00 ` Winkler, Tomas
2020-04-24 12:08 ` Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:36 ` [PATCH 4/5] scsi: ufs: tc-dwc-pci: Allow for MSI interrupt type Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:55 ` Winkler, Tomas
2020-04-24 12:02 ` Jose Abreu
2020-04-24 11:37 ` [PATCH 5/5] MAINTAINERS: Change Maintainers for SCSI UFS DWC Drivers Jose Abreu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200425111056.GA3384@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=Joao.Lima@synopsys.com \
--cc=Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com \
--cc=Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).