From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE68C433DF for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B44A20739 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=samsung.com header.i=@samsung.com header.b="U4e6codZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726486AbgFPCuF (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:50:05 -0400 Received: from mailout3.samsung.com ([203.254.224.33]:36935 "EHLO mailout3.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726286AbgFPCuF (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:50:05 -0400 Received: from epcas1p3.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.41.47]) by mailout3.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20200616025002epoutp030d27f06d18f43e7c4a1b033ea227bb55~Y5mgLeJf31007610076epoutp036 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:50:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailout3.samsung.com 20200616025002epoutp030d27f06d18f43e7c4a1b033ea227bb55~Y5mgLeJf31007610076epoutp036 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samsung.com; s=mail20170921; t=1592275802; bh=spjKI7Hru4Soqaq2x2p1K2V9p9tJZfIMpDHOwwXNFcA=; h=Subject:Reply-To:From:To:CC:In-Reply-To:Date:References:From; b=U4e6codZVmWZ22i7/tu3fli/Uh/Q9Erp9DVyY7/11FWR7tTliaLmyw4A8BOf6krCK zJ4MElA551XoAjOgGAAsGLoqtgKJguRhatyjQ5ht3MDA80f0G3xGhZwA4sMWrZNGRQ mlEImivGZJYQtb9sW4kKolnIvOOCcXP/OZxtCTH0= Received: from epcpadp1 (unknown [182.195.40.11]) by epcas1p3.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20200616025002epcas1p316c0cf1052a1a6976a1405c3b6eb54ce~Y5mf0vEjn1669816698epcas1p38; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:50:02 +0000 (GMT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] scsi: ufs: Add UFS-feature layer Reply-To: daejun7.park@samsung.com From: Daejun Park To: Bean Huo , Daejun Park , ALIM AKHTAR , "avri.altman@wdc.com" , "jejb@linux.ibm.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" , "beanhuo@micron.com" , "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" , "cang@codeaurora.org" , "bvanassche@acm.org" , "tomas.winkler@intel.com" CC: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Sang-yoon Oh , Sung-Jun Park , yongmyung lee , Jinyoung CHOI , Adel Choi , BoRam Shin X-Priority: 3 X-Content-Kind-Code: NORMAL In-Reply-To: <47dcc56312229fc8f25f39c2beeb3a8ba811f3e9.camel@gmail.com> X-CPGS-Detection: blocking_info_exchange X-Drm-Type: N,general X-Msg-Generator: Mail X-Msg-Type: PERSONAL X-Reply-Demand: N Message-ID: <1210830415.21592275802431.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp1> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:18:42 +0900 X-CMS-MailID: 20200616011842epcms2p627921d294e8fea0348036e1d9eb5f2c1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Sendblock-Type: AUTO_CONFIDENTIAL X-CPGSPASS: Y X-CPGSPASS: Y X-Hop-Count: 3 X-CMS-RootMailID: 20200615062708epcms2p19a7fbc051bcd5e843c29dcd58fff4210 References: <47dcc56312229fc8f25f39c2beeb3a8ba811f3e9.camel@gmail.com> <336371513.41592205783606.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <231786897.01592205482200.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <231786897.01592212081335.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Bean > > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 16:23 +0900, Daejun Park wrote: > > +void ufsf_scan_features(struct ufs_hba *hba) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + init_waitqueue_head(&hba->ufsf.sdev_wait); > > + atomic_set(&hba->ufsf.slave_conf_cnt, 0); > > + > > + if (hba->dev_info.wspecversion >= HPB_SUPPORTED_VERSION && > > + (hba->dev_info.b_ufs_feature_sup & UFS_DEV_HPB_SUPPORT)) > > How about removing this check "(hba->dev_info.wspecversion >= > HPB_SUPPORTED_VERSION" since ufs with lower version than v3.1 can add > HPB feature by FFU, > if (hba->dev_info.b_ufs_feature_sup &UFS_FEATURE_SUPPORT_HPB_BIT) is > enough. OK, changing it seems no problem. But I want to know what other people think about this version checking code. Thanks, Daejun