> @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC_PLATFORM) += tc-dwc-g210-pltfrm.o ufshcd-dwc.o tc-d
> obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_QCOM) += ufs-qcom.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_SCSI_UFSHCD) += ufshcd-core.o
> ufshcd-core-objs := ufshcd.o ufs-sysfs.o
> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_BSG),y)
> +ufshcd-core-objs += ufs_bsg.o
> +endif
This shoukd be:
ufshcd-core-y += ufshcd.o ufs-sysfs.o
ufshcd-core-$(CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_BSG) += ufs_bsg.o
> +#include "ufs_bsg.h"
> +
> +struct ufs_bsg_node {
> + struct device dev;
> + struct request_queue *q;
> +};
I think I'd rather see the fields directly in struct ufs_hba as
struct device bsg_dev;
struct request_queue *bsg_queue;
> +static int ufs_bsg_request(struct bsg_job *job)
> +{
> + struct ufs_bsg_request *bsg_request = job->request;
> + struct ufs_bsg_reply *bsg_reply = job->reply;
> + int ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> +
> + bsg_reply->reply_payload_rcv_len = 0;
> +
> + /* Do Nothing for now */
> + dev_err(job->dev, "unsupported message_code 0x%x\n",
> + bsg_request->msgcode);
> +
> + bsg_reply->result = ret;
> + if (ret)
> + job->reply_len = sizeof(uint32_t);
> + else
> + job->reply_len = sizeof(struct ufs_bsg_reply) +
> + bsg_reply->reply_payload_rcv_len;
> +
> + bsg_job_done(job, bsg_reply->result, bsg_reply->reply_payload_rcv_len);
> +
> + return ret;
Do we really need to store the Linux return valu in the reply field?
Having only one length and format would seem a lot more intuitive to me.
