> On 4/6/24 11:04 PM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > UFS spec version 2.1 was published more than 10 years ago. It is
> > vanishingly unlikely that even there are out there platforms that uses
> > earlier host controllers, let alone that those ancient platforms will
> > ever run a V6.10 kernel. To be extra cautious, leave out support for
> > UFSHCI2.0 as well, and just remove support of host controllers prior
> > to UFS2.0.
> >
> > This patch removes some legacy tuning calls that no longer apply.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@xxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 158 +++---------------------------------
> > drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 3 +-
> > include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 2 -
> > include/ufs/ufshci.h | 13 +--
> > 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index 62c8575f2c67..c72ef87ea867 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -748,8 +748,6 @@ static int ufshcd_wait_for_register(struct ufs_hba
> *hba, u32 reg, u32 mask,
> > */
> > static inline u32 ufshcd_get_intr_mask(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > {
> > - if (hba->ufs_version == ufshci_version(1, 0))
> > - return INTERRUPT_MASK_ALL_VER_10;
> > if (hba->ufs_version <= ufshci_version(2, 0))
> > return INTERRUPT_MASK_ALL_VER_11;
>
> Is the patch description in sync with the patch itself? The patch description says
> that support for UFSHCI 2.0 is removed while the above if-condition only
> evaluates to true for UFSHCI 2.0 and older controllers.
The cover letter say:
- leave UFSHCI2.0 out of this change (Bart).
And the commit log say:
To be extra cautious, leave out support for
UFSHCI2.0 as well, and just remove support of host controllers prior
to UFS2.0.
Isn't that clear enough?
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
