[v2] ufs: qcom: Fix probe failure on SM8550 SoC due to broken LSDBS field

[PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the UFSHCI 4.0 spec

Posted by Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay 1 year, 5 months ago

From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>

UFSHCI 4.0 spec names the 'Legacy Queue & Single Doorbell Support' field in
Controller Capabilities register as 'LSDBS'. So let's use the same
terminology in the driver to align with the spec.

Tested-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 6 +++---
 include/ufs/ufshcd.h      | 2 +-
 include/ufs/ufshci.h      | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 0b3d0c8e0dda..0b1787074215 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -2418,7 +2418,7 @@ static inline int ufshcd_hba_capabilities(struct ufs_hba *hba)
 
 	/*
 	 * 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.
 	 */
 	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;
 
@@ -10512,7 +10512,7 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void __iomem *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
 	}
 
 	if (!is_mcq_supported(hba)) {
-		if (!hba->lsdb_sup) {
+		if (!hba->lsdbs_sup) {
 			dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: failed to initialize (legacy doorbell mode not supported)\n",
 				__func__);
 			err = -EINVAL;
diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
index cac0cdb9a916..c6ab1c671ad7 100644
--- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
+++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
@@ -1109,7 +1109,7 @@ struct ufs_hba {
 	bool ext_iid_sup;
 	bool scsi_host_added;
 	bool mcq_sup;
-	bool lsdb_sup;
+	bool lsdbs_sup;
 	bool mcq_enabled;
 	struct ufshcd_res_info res[RES_MAX];
 	void __iomem *mcq_base;
diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshci.h b/include/ufs/ufshci.h
index 9917c7743d80..35013ba71b75 100644
--- a/include/ufs/ufshci.h
+++ b/include/ufs/ufshci.h
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ enum {
 	MASK_OUT_OF_ORDER_DATA_DELIVERY_SUPPORT	= 0x02000000,
 	MASK_UIC_DME_TEST_MODE_SUPPORT		= 0x04000000,
 	MASK_CRYPTO_SUPPORT			= 0x10000000,
-	MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
+	MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
 	MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT			= 0x40000000,
 };
 

-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the UFSHCI 4.0 spec

Posted by Bart Van Assche 1 year, 5 months ago

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?

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the UFSHCI 4.0 spec

Posted by Manivannan Sadhasivam 1 year, 5 months ago

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