Re: [PATCH v1 02/17] scsi: ufs: add option to change default UFS power management level

[ygardi@codeaurora.org]

> 2015-09-13 23:52 GMT+09:00 Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>:
>> UFS device and link can be put in multiple different low power modes
>> hence UFS driver supports multiple different low power modes.
>> By default UFS driver selects the default (optimal) low power mode
>> (which gives moderate power savings and have relatively less enter
>> and exit latencies) but we might have to tune this default power
>> mode for different chipset platforms to meet the low power
>> requirements/goals. Hence this patch adds option to change default
>> UFS low power mode (level).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 3196197..1d26e49 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -1195,11 +1195,12 @@ static int ufs_qcom_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>                 if (res) {
>>                         host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio =
>>                                         devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
>> -                       if (IS_ERR(host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio)) {
>> -                               dev_warn(dev,
>> -                                       "%s: could not map
>> dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio, err %ld\n",
>> +                       if (IS_ERR((__force void const *)
>> +                                  host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio)) {
>> +                               dev_warn(dev, "%s: could not map
>> dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio, err %ld\n",
>>                                         __func__,
>> -
>> PTR_ERR(host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio));
>> +                                       PTR_ERR((__force void const *)
>> +
>> host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio));
>>                                 host->dev_ref_clk_ctrl_mmio = NULL;
>>                         }
>>                         host->dev_ref_clk_en_mask = BIT(5);
>
> This change looks unrelated.  Should this be belong to other patch?
>

correct, it's minor change,
but i will separate it to a different patch.