On 3/29/2016 12:33 PM, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On 3/29/2016 11:41 AM, Winkler, Tomas wrote: >> >> Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes v8->v11: >> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version). >> Changes v7->v8: >> - Added "jedec, ufs-2.0" to the ufschd-platform compatibility strings Changes v0->v7: >> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version). >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt | 4 +-- >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++--- >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt >> index 03c0e98..8d9a9d2 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt >> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers. >> Each UFS controller instance should have its own node. >> >> Required properties: >> -- compatible : must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1", may also list one or more >> - of the following: >> +- compatible : must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may >> + also list one or more of the following: >> "qcom,msm8994-ufshc" >> "qcom,msm8996-ufshc" >> "qcom,ufshc" >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> index 85cd256..2b5f2bf 100644 >> >> I think this should go in separate patch > > In my opinion it only makes sense to add 2.0 to the device-tree binding if the driver actually supports it, that was why I added to the same patch, but of course it can be separated if more people agree with the approach. > > Yes, we have ufshcd-pci device that needs that so I think this should go separately I will separate this, no problem. >> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c >> @@ -1223,6 +1223,7 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) >> ret = -EINVAL; >> } >> break; >> + case UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE: >> case UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE: >> ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE); >> if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) @@ -1287,6 +1288,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) >> struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp; >> struct ufs_hba *hba; >> unsigned long flags; >> + u32 upiu_flags; >> int tag; >> int err = 0; >> >> @@ -1343,10 +1345,23 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) >> lrbp->task_tag = tag; >> lrbp->lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(cmd->device->lun); >> lrbp->intr_cmd = !ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(hba) ? true : false; >> - lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI; >> + >> + if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) >> + lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE; >> + else >> + lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI; >> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up >> with ~oneliner fix > > I think your suggestion is good! We have to check the 2.0 version in 2 places and with your approach we would only check it in prepare_req_desc_hdr() once. > I will do that update! > > Okay I think you can alter ufshcd_lrb structure and push the information there, > Add ufs version there as hba is not available in req_desc_hdr, I think both command_type and ufs_version can be u8 so the structure won't grow. Going to check it out. > > >> >> >> /* form UPIU before issuing the command */ >> - ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp); >> + if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) { >> + if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) { >> How this can be possible NULL, the code above will crash or I'm missing something ? >> + ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, >> + lrbp->cmd->sc_data_direction); >> + ufshcd_prepare_utp_scsi_cmd_upiu(lrbp, upiu_flags); >> What is different her from the code in ufshcd_compose_upiu ? >> + } else >> + err = -EINVAL; >> + } else >> + ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp); > > If you check ufshcd_compose_upiu() you will see that it contains 2 scopes: > cmd_upiu and query_req_upiu. Before 2.0 this single function approach that had both scopes worked well, but now with 2.0 we must use the same command_type > (UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) which causes incompatibility. This was why I put the same code from cmd_upiu in the outside. > > Of course we can break ufshcd_compose_upiu() in 2: ufshcd_compose_cmd_upiu() and ufshcd_compose_query_upiu(). What do you think? > If you use ufs_version only in req_desc_hdr then you don't need this > > If (ufs_version == 2.0) > cmd_type = UFS_STORAGE > else > cmd_type = lrb->command_type > > ... > I think with this change Ok, I will test that. > >> + >> err = ufshcd_map_sg(lrbp); >> if (err) { >> lrbp->cmd = NULL; >> @@ -1371,7 +1386,12 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba, >> lrbp->sense_buffer = NULL; [snip] >> complete(hba->dev_cmd.complete); >> } >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h >> index 0ae0967..8dba0e7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h >> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ enum { >> UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI = 0x0, >> UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS = 0x1, >> UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE = 0x2, >> + UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE = 0x11, > Why 0x11? I'll have to check with our R&D team. > > Thanks > Tomas > Thanks Joao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html