On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 08:17:10PM +0200, Mary Guillemard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 05:38:52PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:24:42AM +0200, Mary Guillemard wrote: > > > MT8183 supports UFSHCI 2.1 spec, but report a bogus value of 1 in the > > > reserved part for the Legacy Single Doorbell Support (LSDBS) capability. > > > > > > > Wow... I never thought that this quirk will be used outside of Qcom SoCs... > > > > Yeah I found that by trial and error some weeks ago and noticed your > serie while looking to upstream this change, quite funny to see other > vendors having the same quirk here. > > > > This set UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_LSDBS_CAP when MCQ support is explicitly > > > disabled, allowing the device to be properly registered. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mary Guillemard <mary@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/ufs/host/ufs-mediatek.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-mediatek.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-mediatek.c > > > index 02c9064284e1..9a5919434c4e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-mediatek.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufs-mediatek.c > > > @@ -1026,6 +1026,9 @@ static int ufs_mtk_init(struct ufs_hba *hba) > > > if (host->caps & UFS_MTK_CAP_DISABLE_AH8) > > > hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_HIBERN8_WITH_CLK_GATING; > > > > > > + if (host->caps & UFS_MTK_CAP_DISABLE_MCQ) > > > > How can this be the deciding factor? You said above that the issue is with > > MT8183 SoC. So why not just use the quirk only for that platform? > > > > - Mani > > > > So my current assumption is that it also affect other Mediatek SoCs > that are also based on UFS 2.1 spec but I cannot check this. > > Instead, we know that if MCQ isn't supported, we must fallback to LSDB > as there is no other ways to drive the device. > > UFS_MTK_CAP_DISABLE_MCQ (mediatek,ufs-disable-mcq) being unused upstream, > I think that's an acceptable fix. > If you use this quirk, then you need to use the corresponding DT property. But using the 'mediatek,ufs-disable-mcq' property for 2.1 controller doesn't make sense as MCQ is for controllers >= 4.0. > Another way to handle this would be to add a new dt property and add it > to ufs_mtk_host_caps but I feel that my approach should be enough. > No need to add a DT property. Just use the SoC specific compatible as I did for SM8550 SoC. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
