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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.