Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] scsi: ufs: core: Add support for TX Equalization

[Can Guo <can.guo@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 3/17/2026 12:55 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/14/26 2:33 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/2026 4:19 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/14/2026 6:19 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/26 8:14 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>>>>> +static int txeq_gear_set(const char *val, const struct 
>>>>> kernel_param *kp)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return param_set_uint_minmax(val, kp, UFS_HS_G1, UFS_HS_G6);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Why UFS_HS_G6 instead of UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX?
>>> I will use 'UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX - 1' in next version.
>> On second thought, to make the code more readable and scalable, I 
>> will use UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX
>> here. To achieve so, I am going to tweak the code like below:
>>
>> enum ufs_hs_gear_tag {
>>          UFS_HS_DONT_CHANGE,     /* Don't change Gear */
>>          UFS_HS_G1,              /* HS Gear 1 (default for reset) */
>>          UFS_HS_G2,              /* HS Gear 2 */
>>          UFS_HS_G3,              /* HS Gear 3 */
>>          UFS_HS_G4,              /* HS Gear 4 */
>>          UFS_HS_G5,              /* HS Gear 5 */
>> +      UFS_HS_G6,              /* HS Gear 6 */
>> +      UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX_INVALID,
>> };
>> +
>> + #define UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX         UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX_INVALID - 1
> Will UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX_INVALID be used anywhere? If not, please leave it
> out and add the following past UFS_HS_G6 instead of just
> "UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX":
>
>     UFS_HS_GEAR_MAX = UFS_HS_G6,
OK.

Thanks,
Can Guo.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.