RE: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Refactor ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed()

[Keoseong Park <keosung.park@samsung.com>]

>On 24/06/21 1:44 pm, Keoseong Park wrote:
>>> On 24/06/21 9:41 am, Keoseong Park wrote:
>>>>> On 21/06/21 11:51 am, Keoseong Park wrote:
>>>>>> Change conditional compilation to IS_ENABLED macro,
>>>>>> and simplify if else statement to return statement.
>>>>>> No functional change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keoseong Park <keosung.park@samsung.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 17 ++++++++---------
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>>>>>> index c98d540ac044..6d239a855753 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>>>>>> @@ -893,16 +893,15 @@ static inline bool ufshcd_is_rpm_autosuspend_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  static inline bool ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>> -/* DWC UFS Core has the Interrupt aggregation feature but is not detectable*/
>>>>>> -#ifndef CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC
>>>>>> -	if ((hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>>>>>> -	    !(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR))
>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>> +	 * DWC UFS Core has the Interrupt aggregation feature
>>>>>> +	 * but is not detectable.
>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC))
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this needed?  It seems like you could just set UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR
>>>>> and clear UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR instead?
>>>>
>>>> Hello Adrian,
>>>> Sorry for late reply.
>>>>
>>>> The code that returns true when CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC is set in the original code 
>>>> is only changed using the IS_ENABLED macro.
>>>> (Linux kernel coding style, 21) Conditional Compilation)
>>>>
>>>> When CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC is not defined, the code for checking quirk 
>>>> and caps has been moved to the newly added return statement below.
>>>
>>> Looking closer I cannot find CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC at all.  It seems like it
>>> never existed.
>>>
>>> Why should we not remove the code related to CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC entirely?
>> 
>> You're right. What do you think of deleting the code related to CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC 
>> and changing it to the patch below?
>
>Yes, but cc Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com> who introduced the code

Thanks for your advice. I will upload next version patch by adding cc.

Thanks,
Keoseong

>
>> 
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> index c98d540ac044..c9faca237290 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h
>> @@ -893,16 +893,8 @@ static inline bool ufshcd_is_rpm_autosuspend_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> 
>>  static inline bool ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  {
>> -/* DWC UFS Core has the Interrupt aggregation feature but is not detectable*/
>> -#ifndef CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC
>> -       if ((hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>> -           !(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR))
>> -               return true;
>> -       else
>> -               return false;
>> -#else
>> -return true;
>> -#endif
>> +       return (hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>> +               !(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR);
>>  }
>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Keoseong
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  		return true;
>>>>>> -	else
>>>>>> -		return false;
>>>>>> -#else
>>>>>> -return true;
>>>>>> -#endif
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	return (hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_INTR_AGGR) &&
>>>>>> +		!(hba->quirks & UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_INTR_AGGR);
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  static inline bool ufshcd_can_aggressive_pc(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>