On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:09:06AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/14/24 10:16 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
> > /*
> > * The UFSHCI 3.0 specification does not define MCQ_SUPPORT and
> > - * LSDB_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
> > + * LSDBS_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
> > * means we can simply read values regardless of version.
> > */
>
> Hmm ... neither MCQ_SUPPORT nor LSDBS_SUPPORT occurs in the UFSHCI 4.0
> specification. I found the acronyms "MCQS" and "LSDBS" in that
> specification. I propose either not to modify the above comment or to use
> the acronyms used in the UFSHCI 4.0 standard.
>
> > hba->mcq_sup = FIELD_GET(MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> > @@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static inline int ufshcd_hba_capabilities(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> > * 0h: legacy single doorbell support is available
> > * 1h: indicate that legacy single doorbell support has been removed
> > */
> > - hba->lsdb_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> > + hba->lsdbs_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> > if (!hba->mcq_sup)
> > return 0;
>
> The final "s" in "lsdbs" stands for "support" so there are now two
> references to the word "support" in the "lsdbs_sup" member name. Isn't
> the original structure member name ("lsdb_sup") better because it doesn't
> have that redundancy?
>
> > MASK_CRYPTO_SUPPORT = 0x10000000,
> > - MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT = 0x20000000,
> > + MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT = 0x20000000,
> > MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT = 0x40000000,
>
> Same comment here: in the constant name "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" there are
> two references to the word "support". Isn't the original name better?
> Additionally, this change introduces an inconsistency between the
> constant names "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" and "MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT". The former
> name includes the acronym from the spec (LSDBS) but the latter name not
> (MCQS). Wouldn't it be better to leave this change out?
>
Hmm, agree. My intention was to align with the spec, but then the _SUPPORT
suffix is screwing it up :/
I'll drop the patch then.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
