HI Bart > The above sentence is not complete. Did you perhaps want to write "are > supported by the host controller" instead of "status"? Will fix it in the next version. > I don't think the above documentation is correct. My understanding is > that the UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_SCALING flag indicates whether or not the host > controller supports clock scaling. It does not indicate whether or not > clock scaling is enabled. Ah, right, there is a control for it in sysfs, it is just hidden in ufshcd.c I was under a wrong impression that it is like the writebooster capability that has quite a bit of conditions for staying present. WIll fix it in the next version. > Please change "can not / can be enabled" into "is not supported by the > host controller / is supported by the host controller". That would be incorrect. The "caps" variable semantics is a bit weird in the sense that it is used at times to convey "active" capabilities, not just supported one. For example, for the writebooster capability to be present in caps, first controller driver should indicate it is ready to support it, then the part that is attached to the host controller has to indicate support in the device descriptor, then WB has to be configured and its lifetime should not be exhausted. If any of those parameters are not satisfied, the capability will be removed from the set despite generally being supported. I am not sure how to properly word it, but just saying "controller supports it" would becounter-factual (especially since the controller doesn't really knows anything about writebooster per-ce, it is part's functionality). What would be suggested wording in that case? --Daniil
