On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 05:59 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > On 4/1/22 02:32, Bean Huo wrote: > > > Agree that the current UFS driver is messy, but I don't think > > > there > > > was such a big structural change before UFS 4.0 was released, > > > especially the design of the UFS CQE driver. If you already have > > > a > > > plan for CQE, it's best to state it in the patch. If you have > > > made > > > such a big change in an environment that is now very stable, do > > > we > > > have to make changes after UFS 4.0? ? > > > > Hi Bean, > > > > Although this patch series will make it easier to add UFSHCI 4.0 > > support, I think > > that UFSHCI 4.0 support can also be added without this patch > > series. > Also, UFS4.0 and its UFSHCI4.0 companion are expected to be published > around end of May, right? > I doubt if we'll have platforms to test those changes within the > V5.19, or even V5.20 timeframe. > So MCQ should not conflict with those, mostly structural, cleanups. > > Thanks, > Avri Yes, I reviewed the entire series of patches and there are no significant structural changes. Still want to squeeze ufs driver under driver/scsi/ufs/. No major conflict with pending submissions. Go ahead. Kind regards, Bean
