RE: [RESEND] [PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
From: Winkler, Tomas <hidden>
Date: 2016-03-29 11:33:34
Also in:
linux-scsi, lkml
Hi Thomas, On 3/29/2016 11:41 AM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Adding UFS 2.0 support to the UFS core driver. Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <redacted> 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.txtb/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 100644I 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
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- 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
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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