>
> On 5/26/24 01:16, Avri Altman wrote:
> > - rtt = min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->nortt);
> > + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->max_num_rtt)
> > + rtt = hba->vops->max_num_rtt;
> > + else
> > + rtt = min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->nortt);
> > +
>
> Shouldn't what the controller supports be compared with what the device
> supports, e.g. as follows?
>
> min_t(int, dev_info->rtt_cap, hba->vops->max_num_rtt ? : hba->nortt);
Yes, this is an option too.
The one that I proposed allows to entirely overrides the negotiation.
I think your suggestion is better.
Will change.
>
> > struct ufs_hba_variant_ops {
> > const char *name;
> > + int max_num_rtt;
>
> Hmm ... why 'int' instead of an unsigned type? If the type would be changed
> into 'u8' (the type of rtt_cap) then the above min_t() can be changed into
> min().
Nortt is 0 based, meaning it can be 256, which some of the platforms in the market do use, so u8 is not enough.
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
