Re: [PATCH V3 1/9] scsi: ufs: qcom: add a new phy calibrate API call

[Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>]

On 4/23/2025 4:12 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 4/10/25 11:00 AM, Nitin Rawat wrote:
>> Introduce a new phy calibrate API call in the UFS Qualcomm driver to
>> separate phy calibration from phy power-on. This change is a precursor
>> to the next patchset in this series, which requires these two operations
>> to be distinct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 1b37449fbffc..4998656e9267 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -473,6 +473,12 @@ static int ufs_qcom_power_up_sequence(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>   		goto out_disable_phy;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	ret = phy_calibrate(phy);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: Failed to calibrate PHY %d\n",
> 
> Please add a colon, so that it becomes "..PHY: %d\n"
> 
>> +			__func__, ret);
> Avoid __func__, this print is fine without it

Sure will update this in next patchset.

> 
> Shouldn't we fail the power-on if this can't succeed?

Thanks for the catch. Yes we should return power-on failure if calibrate 
fails.
Even if there is calibrate phy ops registered, it will return 0. So for 
so nonzero return value we should treat failure and fail poweron.
Sure will this in next patchset.

Thanks,
Nitin

> 
> Konrad