> Hi Avri, > > On 10/03/2021 4:34 pm, Avri Altman wrote: > >> @@ -9298,10 +9291,7 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void > __iomem > >> *mmio_base, unsigned int irq) > >> /* Get UFS version supported by the controller */ > >> hba->ufs_version = ufshcd_get_ufs_version(hba); > >> > >> - if ((hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_10) && > >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_11) && > >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_20) && > >> - (hba->ufs_version != UFSHCI_VERSION_21)) > >> + if (hba->ufs_version < ufshci_version(1, 0)) > >> dev_err(hba->dev, "invalid UFS version 0x%x\n", > >> hba->ufs_version); > > Here you replaces the specific allowable values, with an expression > > That doesn't really reflects those values. > > I took this approach based on feedback from previous patches: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux- > scsi/d1b23943b6b3ae6c1f6af041cc592932@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/25/159 > > > Patch 3 of this series removes this check entirely, as it is neither > accurate or useful. I noticed that. > > The driver does not fail when printing this error, nor is the list of > "valid" UFS versions here kept up to date, I struggle to see a situation > in which that error message would actually be helpful. Responses to > previous patches (above) that added UFS 3.0 to the list have all > suggested that removing this check is a more sensible approach. OK. Thanks, Avri
