Re: [PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: core: introduce override_cqe_ocs

[Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 16:01 +0900, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> UFSHCI defines OCS values but doesn't specify what exact
> conditions raise them. E.g. when some commands are nullified
> or cleaned up, Exynos host reposts OCS_ABORT. Even if
> an OEM wants to issue them again, not fail, current UFS driver
> fails them because it set command result to DID_ABORT.
> 
> So I think it needs another callback to replace the original OCS
> value with the value that works the way you want.
> 
I'm not clear on OCS was initiated by UFSHCI, but could you explain why
it can't be altered within UFSHCI?



> Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h | 9 +++++++++
>  drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c      | 4 +++-
>  include/ufs/ufshcd.h           | 1 +
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> index ce36154..4dec6eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> @@ -275,6 +275,15 @@ static inline int
> ufshcd_mcq_vops_config_esi(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  }
>  
> +static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct
> ufs_hba *hba,
> +                                                       enum utp_ocs
> ocs)
> +{
> +       if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
> +               return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);

it is useless until you should introudce an usage case.


Kind regards,
Bean