drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h | 9 +++++++++ drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 4 +++- include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
UFSHCI defines OCS values but doesn't specify what exact
conditions raise them. E.g. when some commands are nullified
or cleaned up, Exynos host reposts OCS_ABORT. Even if
an OEM wants to issue them again, not fail, current UFS driver
fails them because it set command result to DID_ABORT.
So I think it needs another callback to replace the original OCS
value with the value that works the way you want.
Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h | 9 +++++++++
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 4 +++-
include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
index ce36154..4dec6eb 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
@@ -275,6 +275,15 @@ static inline int ufshcd_mcq_vops_config_esi(struct ufs_hba *hba)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
+static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct ufs_hba *hba,
+ enum utp_ocs ocs)
+{
+ if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
+ return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
+
+ return ocs;
+}
+
extern const struct ufs_pm_lvl_states ufs_pm_lvl_states[];
/**
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 0dd2605..83a1870 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -825,7 +825,9 @@ static enum utp_ocs ufshcd_get_tr_ocs(struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp,
struct cq_entry *cqe)
{
if (cqe)
- return le32_to_cpu(cqe->status) & MASK_OCS;
+ return ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(hba,
+ le32_to_cpu(cqe->status) &
+ MASK_OCS);
return lrbp->utr_descriptor_ptr->header.ocs & MASK_OCS;
}
diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
index a43b142..64444fb 100644
--- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
+++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
@@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ struct ufs_hba_variant_ops {
int (*get_outstanding_cqs)(struct ufs_hba *hba,
unsigned long *ocqs);
int (*config_esi)(struct ufs_hba *hba);
+ enum utp_ocs (*override_cqe_ocs)(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum utp_ocs);
};
/* clock gating state */
--
2.7.4Hi Kiwoong,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on jejb-scsi/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on mkp-scsi/for-next linus/master v6.11-rc3 next-20240812]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kiwoong-Kim/scsi-ufs-core-introduce-override_cqe_ocs/20240812-151156
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git for-next
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1723446114-153235-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim%40samsung.com
patch subject: [PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: core: introduce override_cqe_ocs
config: i386-buildonly-randconfig-004-20240812 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240813/202408131018.XQ8EvnAi-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 18.1.5 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 617a15a9eac96088ae5e9134248d8236e34b91b1)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240813/202408131018.XQ8EvnAi-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202408131018.XQ8EvnAi-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:31:
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h:282:41: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
282 | return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:828:39: error: use of undeclared identifier 'hba'
828 | return ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(hba,
| ^
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:10340:44: warning: shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]
10340 | if (!dma_set_mask_and_coherent(hba->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/dma-mapping.h:77:54: note: expanded from macro 'DMA_BIT_MASK'
77 | #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
| ^ ~~~
1 warning and 2 errors generated.
--
In file included from drivers/ufs/core/ufs-debugfs.c:8:
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h:282:41: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 2, have 1
282 | return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
1 error generated.
vim +282 drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
277
278 static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct ufs_hba *hba,
279 enum utp_ocs ocs)
280 {
281 if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
> 282 return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
283
284 return ocs;
285 }
286
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Hi Kiwoong,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on jejb-scsi/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on mkp-scsi/for-next linus/master v6.11-rc3 next-20240812]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kiwoong-Kim/scsi-ufs-core-introduce-override_cqe_ocs/20240812-151156
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git for-next
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1723446114-153235-1-git-send-email-kwmad.kim%40samsung.com
patch subject: [PATCH v1] scsi: ufs: core: introduce override_cqe_ocs
config: arc-randconfig-002-20240812 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240812/202408122344.dvhCpFj0-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: arc-elf-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240812/202408122344.dvhCpFj0-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202408122344.dvhCpFj0-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:31:
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h: In function 'ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs':
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h:282:24: error: too few arguments to function 'hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs'
282 | return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
| ^~~
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c: In function 'ufshcd_get_tr_ocs':
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:828:53: error: 'hba' undeclared (first use in this function)
828 | return ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(hba,
| ^~~
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:828:53: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
--
In file included from drivers/ufs/core/ufs_bsg.c:14:
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h: In function 'ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs':
>> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h:282:24: error: too few arguments to function 'hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs'
282 | return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
| ^~~
vim +282 drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
277
278 static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct ufs_hba *hba,
279 enum utp_ocs ocs)
280 {
281 if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
> 282 return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
283
284 return ocs;
285 }
286
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 16:01 +0900, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
> UFSHCI defines OCS values but doesn't specify what exact
> conditions raise them. E.g. when some commands are nullified
> or cleaned up, Exynos host reposts OCS_ABORT. Even if
> an OEM wants to issue them again, not fail, current UFS driver
> fails them because it set command result to DID_ABORT.
>
> So I think it needs another callback to replace the original OCS
> value with the value that works the way you want.
>
I'm not clear on OCS was initiated by UFSHCI, but could you explain why
it can't be altered within UFSHCI?
> Signed-off-by: Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h | 9 +++++++++
> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 4 +++-
> include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> index ce36154..4dec6eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd-priv.h
> @@ -275,6 +275,15 @@ static inline int
> ufshcd_mcq_vops_config_esi(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
>
> +static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct
> ufs_hba *hba,
> + enum utp_ocs
> ocs)
> +{
> + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
> + return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
it is useless until you should introudce an usage case.
Kind regards,
Bean
On 8/12/24 8:41 AM, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 16:01 +0900, Kiwoong Kim wrote:
>> +static inline enum utp_ocs ufshcd_vops_override_cqe_ocs(struct
>> ufs_hba *hba,
>> + enum utp_ocs
>> ocs)
>> +{
>> + if (hba->vops && hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs)
>> + return hba->vops->override_cqe_ocs(hba);
>
> it is useless until you should introduce an usage case.
Indeed. If a new callback is introduced, a user for that callback should
be introduced in the same patch series.
Thanks,
Bart.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.