On 8/2/22 07:32, peter.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Peter Wang <peter.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Set UFSHCD_CAP_WB_WITH_CLK_SCALING for qcom to compatible legacy design.
Signed-off-by: Peter Wang <peter.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
index f10d4668814c..f8c9a78e7776 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c
@@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static void ufs_qcom_set_caps(struct ufs_hba *hba)
struct ufs_qcom_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_GATING | UFSHCD_CAP_HIBERN8_WITH_CLK_GATING;
- hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_SCALING;
+ hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_SCALING | UFSHCD_CAP_WB_WITH_CLK_SCALING;
hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_AUTO_BKOPS_SUSPEND;
hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN;
hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_CRYPTO;
A patch series should be bisectable. Without this patch the previous
patch in this series introduces a regression for Qualcomm controllers.
So I think that the two patches should be combined into a single patch.
Thanks,
Bart.
