Hi Bart,
On 2/21/2024 1:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 2/20/24 01:08, Rohit Ner wrote:
Allow variant callback to setup transfers without
restricting the transfers to use legacy doorbell
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ner <rohitner@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index d77b25b79ae3..91e483dd3974 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -2280,6 +2280,9 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba,
unsigned int task_tag,
ufshcd_clk_scaling_start_busy(hba);
if (unlikely(ufshcd_should_inform_monitor(hba, lrbp)))
ufshcd_start_monitor(hba, lrbp);
+ if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req)
+ hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, lrbp->task_tag,
+ !!lrbp->cmd);
if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
int utrd_size = sizeof(struct utp_transfer_req_desc);
@@ -2293,9 +2296,6 @@ void ufshcd_send_command(struct ufs_hba *hba,
unsigned int task_tag,
spin_unlock(&hwq->sq_lock);
} else {
spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->outstanding_lock, flags);
- if (hba->vops && hba->vops->setup_xfer_req)
- hba->vops->setup_xfer_req(hba, lrbp->task_tag,
- !!lrbp->cmd);
__set_bit(lrbp->task_tag, &hba->outstanding_reqs);
ufshcd_writel(hba, 1 << lrbp->task_tag,
REG_UTP_TRANSFER_REQ_DOOR_BELL);
UFS controllers that are compliant with the JEDEC UFSHCI specification do
not need the .setup_xfer_req() callback so I think a better motivation is
needed to make this change.
I am going to push some BUG fixes for Qualcomm UFSHCI MCQ engine, one of
which would count on a vops in ufshcd_send_command(). My original plan
was to add a new vops.mcq_setup_xfer_req() to differentiate from the
existing one used in legacy mode. But if Rohit moves the existing
.setup_xfer_req() up, I can use it instead of introducing the new one.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
Thanks,
Bart.
