> Avri, > > thanks for your review. > > On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:40 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > > From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Check UFS Advanced RPMB LU enablement during ufshcd_lu_init(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 4 ++++ > > > include/ufs/ufs.h | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > > > index ee73d7036133..d49e7a0b82ca 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > > > @@ -4940,6 +4940,10 @@ static void ufshcd_lu_init(struct ufs_hba > > > *hba, struct scsi_device *sdev) > > > desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_LU_WR_PROTECT] == > > > UFS_LU_POWER_ON_WP) > > > hba->dev_info.is_lu_power_on_wp = true; > > > > > > + if (desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_UNIT_INDEX] == UFS_RPMB_UNIT > > > && > > Please remind me why do we need both UFS_RPMB_UNIT and > > UFS_UPIU_RPMB_WLUN ? > > I see. they are the same value, we should remove one, will change it in next > version. > > > > > + desc_buf[UNIT_DESC_PARAM_RPMB_REGION_EN] & 1 << 4) > > (1 << 4) or BIT(4) ? Not saying that testing bit 4 of bRPMBRegionEnable is wrong, Have you considered using bit 10 of dExtendedUFSFeaturesSupport and decided otherwise? Thanks, Avri
