Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1366151 > unrolled thread

RE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities

Started by"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
First post2016-03-29 12:50 +0200
Last post2016-03-29 14:00 +0200
Articles 4 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com> - 2016-03-29 12:50 +0200
    Re: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-29 13:10 +0200
      RE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com> - 2016-03-29 13:40 +0200
        Re: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-29 14:00 +0200

#1366151 — RE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities

From"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Date2016-03-29 12:50 +0200
SubjectRE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
Message-ID<rhZnI-4Qd-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver.

Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
Changes v8->v11:
- Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
Changes v7->v8:
- Added "jedec, ufs-2.0" to the ufschd-platform compatibility strings Changes v0->v7:
- Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).

 .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt      |  4 +--
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c                          | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h                          |  1 +
 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
index 03c0e98..8d9a9d2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers.
 Each UFS controller instance should have its own node.
 
 Required properties:
-- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1", may also list one or more
-					  of the following:
+- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
+			  also list one or more of the following:
 					  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
 					  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
 					  "qcom,ufshc"
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c index 85cd256..2b5f2bf 100644

I think this should go in separate patch 

--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -1223,6 +1223,7 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
 			ret = -EINVAL;
 		}
 		break;
+	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE:
 	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE:
 		ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE);
 		if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) @@ -1287,6 +1288,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
 	struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
 	struct ufs_hba *hba;
 	unsigned long flags;
+	u32 upiu_flags;
 	int tag;
 	int err = 0;
 
@@ -1343,10 +1345,23 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
 	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
 	lrbp->lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(cmd->device->lun);
 	lrbp->intr_cmd = !ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(hba) ? true : false;
-	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
+
+	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
+		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
+	else
+		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up with  ~oneliner fix 

 
 	/* form UPIU before issuing the command */
-	ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
+	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) {
+		if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) {
How this can be possible NULL, the code above will crash or I'm missing something ? 
+			ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags,
+					lrbp->cmd->sc_data_direction);
+			ufshcd_prepare_utp_scsi_cmd_upiu(lrbp, upiu_flags);
What is different her from the code in ufshcd_compose_upiu ?
+		} else
+			err = -EINVAL;
+	} else
+		ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
+
 	err = ufshcd_map_sg(lrbp);
 	if (err) {
 		lrbp->cmd = NULL;
@@ -1371,7 +1386,12 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
 	lrbp->sense_buffer = NULL;
 	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
 	lrbp->lun = 0; /* device management cmd is not specific to any LUN */
-	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
+
+	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
+		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
+	else
+		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
+
This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up with ~ oneliner fix

 	lrbp->intr_cmd = true; /* No interrupt aggregation */
 	hba->dev_cmd.type = cmd_type;
 
@@ -3187,7 +3207,8 @@ static void ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba)
 			/* Do not touch lrbp after scsi done */
 			cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
 			__ufshcd_release(hba);
-		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE) {
+		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE ||
+			lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) {
 			if (hba->dev_cmd.complete)
 				complete(hba->dev_cmd.complete);
 		}
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h index 0ae0967..8dba0e7 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
@@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ enum {
 	UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI		= 0x0,
 	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS		= 0x1,
 	UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE		= 0x2,
+	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE	= 0x11,
 };
 
 enum {
--
1.8.1.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366163

FromJoao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>
Date2016-03-29 13:10 +0200
Message-ID<rhZH3-5eL-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1366151
Hi Thomas,

On 3/29/2016 11:41 AM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> 
> Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
> Changes v8->v11:
> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
> Changes v7->v8:
> - Added "jedec, ufs-2.0" to the ufschd-platform compatibility strings Changes v0->v7:
> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt      |  4 +--
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c                          | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h                          |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> index 03c0e98..8d9a9d2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers.
>  Each UFS controller instance should have its own node.
>  
>  Required properties:
> -- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1", may also list one or more
> -					  of the following:
> +- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
> +			  also list one or more of the following:
>  					  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
>  					  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
>  					  "qcom,ufshc"
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c index 85cd256..2b5f2bf 100644
> 
> I think this should go in separate patch

In my opinion it only makes sense to add 2.0 to the device-tree binding if the
driver actually supports it, that was why I added to the same patch, but of
course it can be separated if more people agree with the approach.

> 
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1223,6 +1223,7 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>  		}
>  		break;
> +	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE:
>  	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE:
>  		ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE);
>  		if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) @@ -1287,6 +1288,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>  	struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
>  	struct ufs_hba *hba;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 upiu_flags;
>  	int tag;
>  	int err = 0;
>  
> @@ -1343,10 +1345,23 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>  	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
>  	lrbp->lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(cmd->device->lun);
>  	lrbp->intr_cmd = !ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(hba) ? true : false;
> -	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
> +
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
> +	else
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up with  ~oneliner fix 

I think your suggestion is good! We have to check the 2.0 version in 2 places
and with your approach we would only check it in prepare_req_desc_hdr() once.
I will do that update!

> 
>  
>  	/* form UPIU before issuing the command */
> -	ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) {
> +		if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) {
> How this can be possible NULL, the code above will crash or I'm missing something ? 
> +			ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags,
> +					lrbp->cmd->sc_data_direction);
> +			ufshcd_prepare_utp_scsi_cmd_upiu(lrbp, upiu_flags);
> What is different her from the code in ufshcd_compose_upiu ?
> +		} else
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +	} else
> +		ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);

If you check ufshcd_compose_upiu() you will see that it contains 2 scopes:
cmd_upiu and query_req_upiu. Before 2.0 this single function approach that had
both scopes worked well, but now with 2.0 we must use the same command_type
(UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) which causes incompatibility. This was why I put the
same code from cmd_upiu in the outside.

Of course we can break ufshcd_compose_upiu() in 2: ufshcd_compose_cmd_upiu() and
ufshcd_compose_query_upiu(). What do you think?

> +
>  	err = ufshcd_map_sg(lrbp);
>  	if (err) {
>  		lrbp->cmd = NULL;
> @@ -1371,7 +1386,12 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>  	lrbp->sense_buffer = NULL;
>  	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
>  	lrbp->lun = 0; /* device management cmd is not specific to any LUN */
> -	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
> +
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
> +	else
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
> +
> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up with ~ oneliner fix
> 
>  	lrbp->intr_cmd = true; /* No interrupt aggregation */
>  	hba->dev_cmd.type = cmd_type;
>  
> @@ -3187,7 +3207,8 @@ static void ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  			/* Do not touch lrbp after scsi done */
>  			cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
>  			__ufshcd_release(hba);
> -		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE) {
> +		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE ||
> +			lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) {
>  			if (hba->dev_cmd.complete)
>  				complete(hba->dev_cmd.complete);
>  		}
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h index 0ae0967..8dba0e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ enum {
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI		= 0x0,
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS		= 0x1,
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE		= 0x2,
> +	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE	= 0x11,
>  };
>  
>  enum {
> --
> 1.8.1.5
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Thanks,
Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366177

From"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Date2016-03-29 13:40 +0200
Message-ID<ri0a5-5xQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1366163
Hi Thomas,

On 3/29/2016 11:41 AM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> 
> Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
> Changes v8->v11:
> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
> Changes v7->v8:
> - Added "jedec, ufs-2.0" to the ufschd-platform compatibility strings Changes v0->v7:
> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt      |  4 +--
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c                          | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h                          |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt 
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> index 03c0e98..8d9a9d2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers.
>  Each UFS controller instance should have its own node.
>  
>  Required properties:
> -- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1", may also list one or more
> -					  of the following:
> +- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
> +			  also list one or more of the following:
>  					  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
>  					  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
>  					  "qcom,ufshc"
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c 
> index 85cd256..2b5f2bf 100644
> 
> I think this should go in separate patch

In my opinion it only makes sense to add 2.0 to the device-tree binding if the driver actually supports it, that was why I added to the same patch, but of course it can be separated if more people agree with the approach.

Yes, we have ufshcd-pci device that needs that so I think this should go separately 
> 
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1223,6 +1223,7 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>  		}
>  		break;
> +	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE:
>  	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE:
>  		ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE);
>  		if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) @@ -1287,6 +1288,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>  	struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
>  	struct ufs_hba *hba;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 upiu_flags;
>  	int tag;
>  	int err = 0;
>  
> @@ -1343,10 +1345,23 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>  	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
>  	lrbp->lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(cmd->device->lun);
>  	lrbp->intr_cmd = !ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(hba) ? true : false;
> -	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
> +
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
> +	else
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up 
> with  ~oneliner fix

I think your suggestion is good! We have to check the 2.0 version in 2 places and with your approach we would only check it in prepare_req_desc_hdr() once.
I will do that update!

Okay I think you can alter ufshcd_lrb structure and push the information there,
Add ufs version there as hba is not available in req_desc_hdr, I think both command_type and ufs_version can be u8 so the structure won't grow. 


> 
>  
>  	/* form UPIU before issuing the command */
> -	ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) {
> +		if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) {
> How this can be possible NULL, the code above will crash or I'm missing something ? 
> +			ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags,
> +					lrbp->cmd->sc_data_direction);
> +			ufshcd_prepare_utp_scsi_cmd_upiu(lrbp, upiu_flags);
> What is different her from the code in ufshcd_compose_upiu ?
> +		} else
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +	} else
> +		ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);

If you check ufshcd_compose_upiu() you will see that it contains 2 scopes:
cmd_upiu and query_req_upiu. Before 2.0 this single function approach that had both scopes worked well, but now with 2.0 we must use the same command_type
(UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) which causes incompatibility. This was why I put the same code from cmd_upiu in the outside.

Of course we can break ufshcd_compose_upiu() in 2: ufshcd_compose_cmd_upiu() and ufshcd_compose_query_upiu(). What do you think?
If you use ufs_version only in req_desc_hdr then you don't need this

If (ufs_version == 2.0)
   cmd_type = UFS_STORAGE 
else 
    cmd_type = lrb->command_type 

... 
I think with this change 

> +
>  	err = ufshcd_map_sg(lrbp);
>  	if (err) {
>  		lrbp->cmd = NULL;
> @@ -1371,7 +1386,12 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>  	lrbp->sense_buffer = NULL;
>  	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
>  	lrbp->lun = 0; /* device management cmd is not specific to any LUN */
> -	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
> +
> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
> +	else
> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE;
> +
> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up 
> with ~ oneliner fix
> 
>  	lrbp->intr_cmd = true; /* No interrupt aggregation */
>  	hba->dev_cmd.type = cmd_type;
>  
> @@ -3187,7 +3207,8 @@ static void ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  			/* Do not touch lrbp after scsi done */
>  			cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
>  			__ufshcd_release(hba);
> -		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE) {
> +		} else if (lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE ||
> +			lrbp->command_type == UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) {
>  			if (hba->dev_cmd.complete)
>  				complete(hba->dev_cmd.complete);
>  		}
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h 
> index 0ae0967..8dba0e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ enum {
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI		= 0x0,
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS		= 0x1,
>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE		= 0x2,
> +	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE	= 0x11,
Why 0x11? 

Thanks
Tomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366192

FromJoao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>
Date2016-03-29 14:00 +0200
Message-ID<ri0ts-5GO-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1366177
On 3/29/2016 12:33 PM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 3/29/2016 11:41 AM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>>
>> Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@synopsys.com>
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> Changes v8->v11:
>> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
>> Changes v7->v8:
>> - Added "jedec, ufs-2.0" to the ufschd-platform compatibility strings Changes v0->v7:
>> - Nothing changed (just to keep up with patch set version).
>>
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt      |  4 +--
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c                          | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h                          |  1 +
>>  3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
>> index 03c0e98..8d9a9d2 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
>> @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers.
>>  Each UFS controller instance should have its own node.
>>  
>>  Required properties:
>> -- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1", may also list one or more
>> -					  of the following:
>> +- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
>> +			  also list one or more of the following:
>>  					  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
>>  					  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
>>  					  "qcom,ufshc"
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c 
>> index 85cd256..2b5f2bf 100644
>>
>> I think this should go in separate patch
> 
> In my opinion it only makes sense to add 2.0 to the device-tree binding if the driver actually supports it, that was why I added to the same patch, but of course it can be separated if more people agree with the approach.
> 
> Yes, we have ufshcd-pci device that needs that so I think this should go separately 

I will separate this, no problem.

>>
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -1223,6 +1223,7 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
>>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>>  		}
>>  		break;
>> +	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE:
>>  	case UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE:
>>  		ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE);
>>  		if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) @@ -1287,6 +1288,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>  	struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp;
>>  	struct ufs_hba *hba;
>>  	unsigned long flags;
>> +	u32 upiu_flags;
>>  	int tag;
>>  	int err = 0;
>>  
>> @@ -1343,10 +1345,23 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>  	lrbp->task_tag = tag;
>>  	lrbp->lun = ufshcd_scsi_to_upiu_lun(cmd->device->lun);
>>  	lrbp->intr_cmd = !ufshcd_is_intr_aggr_allowed(hba) ? true : false;
>> -	lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
>> +
>> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20)
>> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE;
>> +	else
>> +		lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI;
>> This translation can be pushed to prepare_req_desc_hdr and you end up 
>> with  ~oneliner fix
> 
> I think your suggestion is good! We have to check the 2.0 version in 2 places and with your approach we would only check it in prepare_req_desc_hdr() once.
> I will do that update!
> 
> Okay I think you can alter ufshcd_lrb structure and push the information there,
> Add ufs version there as hba is not available in req_desc_hdr, I think both command_type and ufs_version can be u8 so the structure won't grow. 

Going to check it out.

> 
> 
>>
>>  
>>  	/* form UPIU before issuing the command */
>> -	ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
>> +	if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) {
>> +		if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) {
>> How this can be possible NULL, the code above will crash or I'm missing something ? 
>> +			ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags,
>> +					lrbp->cmd->sc_data_direction);
>> +			ufshcd_prepare_utp_scsi_cmd_upiu(lrbp, upiu_flags);
>> What is different her from the code in ufshcd_compose_upiu ?
>> +		} else
>> +			err = -EINVAL;
>> +	} else
>> +		ufshcd_compose_upiu(hba, lrbp);
> 
> If you check ufshcd_compose_upiu() you will see that it contains 2 scopes:
> cmd_upiu and query_req_upiu. Before 2.0 this single function approach that had both scopes worked well, but now with 2.0 we must use the same command_type
> (UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE) which causes incompatibility. This was why I put the same code from cmd_upiu in the outside.
> 
> Of course we can break ufshcd_compose_upiu() in 2: ufshcd_compose_cmd_upiu() and ufshcd_compose_query_upiu(). What do you think?
> If you use ufs_version only in req_desc_hdr then you don't need this
> 
> If (ufs_version == 2.0)
>    cmd_type = UFS_STORAGE 
> else 
>     cmd_type = lrb->command_type 
> 
> ... 
> I think with this change 

Ok, I will test that.

> 
>> +
>>  	err = ufshcd_map_sg(lrbp);
>>  	if (err) {
>>  		lrbp->cmd = NULL;
>> @@ -1371,7 +1386,12 @@ static int ufshcd_compose_dev_cmd(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>>  	lrbp->sense_buffer = NULL;

[snip]

>>  				complete(hba->dev_cmd.complete);
>>  		}
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h 
>> index 0ae0967..8dba0e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
>> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ enum {
>>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI		= 0x0,
>>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS		= 0x1,
>>  	UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE		= 0x2,
>> +	UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE	= 0x11,
> Why 0x11? 

I'll have to check with our R&D team.

> 
> Thanks
> Tomas 
> 

Thanks
Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web