RE: [PATCH v22 4/4] scsi: ufs: Add HPB 2.0 support
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>
Date: 2021-02-22 19:32:46
Also in:
lkml
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -7447,8 +7452,14 @@ static int ufs_get_device_desc(struct ufs_hba *hba) if (dev_info->wspecversion >= UFS_DEV_HPB_SUPPORT_VERSION && (b_ufs_feature_sup & UFS_DEV_HPB_SUPPORT)) { - dev_info->hpb_enabled = true; - ufshpb_get_dev_info(hba, desc_buf); + bool hpb_en = false; + + err = ufshcd_query_flag_retry(hba,UPIU_QUERY_OPCODE_READ_FLAG, + QUERY_FLAG_IDN_HPB_EN, 0, &hpb_en); + if (!err && hpb_en) { + dev_info->hpb_enabled = true; + ufshpb_get_dev_info(hba, desc_buf);
QUERY_FLAG_IDN_HPB_EN only apply to HPB2.0
+ }
}
+
+/*
+ * WRITE_BUFFER CMD support 36K (len=9) ~ 512K (len=128) default.
+ * it is possible to change range of transfer_len through sysfs.
+ */Actually the transfer length is limited by its (and read id) single byte. Fixing MAX_HPB_READ_ID = 128 is IMO a reasonable choice, But not limited by spec. Maybe make note of that ?
+static inline bool ufshpb_is_required_wb(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb, int len)
+{
+ return (len >= hpb->pre_req_min_tr_len &&
+ len <= hpb->pre_req_max_tr_len);
}Maybe also check HPB2.0 as well?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
-void ufshpb_prep(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) +int ufshpb_prep(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) { struct ufshpb_lu *hpb; struct ufshpb_region *rgn;@@ -282,26 +546,27 @@ void ufshpb_prep(struct ufs_hba *hba, structufshcd_lrb *lrbp) u64 ppn; unsigned long flags; int transfer_len, rgn_idx, srgn_idx, srgn_offset; + int read_id = MAX_HPB_READ_ID;
Should be 0 if wb is not used?
+ + hpb->pre_req = kcalloc(qd, sizeof(struct ufshpb_req), GFP_KERNEL); + hpb->throttle_pre_req = qd;
What is the point in throttling if you are allowing 32 simultaneous commands? There can't be more than qd/2 anyway? On the contrary, it makes much more sense to control the inflight map requests, instead?
+ hpb->num_inflight_pre_req = 0; +
-#define HPB_SUPPORT_VERSION 0x100 +#define HPB_SUPPORT_VERSION 0x200
In ufshpb_get_dev_info you are bailing out if version != HPB_SUPPORT_VERSION Meaning you are no longer backward supporting HPB1.0? Maybe it would be more constructive to allow a day or 2 for more people to comment this new patch? After all, it is a lot of code. Thanks, Avri