On 3/9/2023 10:15 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 3/8/23 21:28, Bao D. Nguyen wrote:
+static bool ufshcd_mcq_sqe_search(struct ufs_hba *hba,
+ struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq, int task_tag)
+{
+ struct utp_transfer_req_desc *utrd;
+ u32 mask = hwq->max_entries - 1;
+ bool ret = false;
+ u64 addr, match;
+ u32 i;
The variable name "i" is usually used for a loop index. In this case
it represents a slot in the submission queue. How about renaming "i"
into "slot"?
I will make the change.
+static inline void ufshcd_mcq_update_sq_head_slot(struct
ufs_hw_queue *q)
+{
+ u32 val = readl(q->mcq_sq_head);
+
+ q->sq_head_slot = val / sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
+}
Please modify this function such that it returns the head slot value
instead of storing it in a member variable and remove the sq_head_slot
member variable. Storing the sq_head_slot value in a member variable
seems wrong to me since the value of that variable will be outdated as
soon as the submission queue is restarted.
I can modify the function that I am introducing in this patch namely
ufshcd_mcq_update_sq_head_slot() according to your suggestion.
However, to keep the original mcq code consistent with this change,
should I make the same modifications to these existing functions
ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_tail_slot(), ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_head() in a
separate patch and include in this series?
+static inline bool ufshcd_mcq_is_sq_empty(struct ufs_hw_queue *q)
+{
+ return q->sq_head_slot == q->sq_tail_slot;
+}
Please remove this function and inline this function into its callers.
Same comment. Should I also update the existing ufshcd_mcq_is_cq_empty()
in a separate patch together with ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_tail_slot(),
ufshcd_mcq_update_cq_head() mentioned above?
Thanks,
Bao
Thanks,
Bart.
