mbox series

[V6,0/6] scsi: ufs: qcom: Align programming sequence as per HW spec

Message ID 20230901114336.31339-1-quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series scsi: ufs: qcom: Align programming sequence as per HW spec | expand

Message

Nitin Rawat Sept. 1, 2023, 11:43 a.m. UTC
This patch aligns programming sequence as per Qualcomm UFS
hardware specification.

changes from v5:
- Addressed Mani comment to FIELD_PREP and FIELD_FIT.
- Optimised ufs_qcom_set_core_clk_ctrl API.
- Updated commit text for few patches to capture more details.

Changes from v4:
- Addressed bjorn comment to split single patch to multiple patches.

Changes from v3:
-Addressed bjorn comment to update commit msg to capture change details.

Changes from v2:
- Addressed bao comment, removed duplicate clock timer cfg API call

Changes from v1:
- Addressed bao comment, removed wrapper function
- Tab alignment

Nitin Rawat (6):
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Align mask for core_clk_1us_cycles
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Configure PA_VS_CORE_CLK_40NS_CYCLES
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Add multiple frequency support for unipro clk
    attributes
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Align unipro clk attributes configuration as per HPG
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Refactor ufs_qcom_cfg_timers function.
  scsi: ufs: qcom: Configure clk HW division based on scaling
    conditions.

 drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.c | 240 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 drivers/ufs/host/ufs-qcom.h |  17 ++-
 2 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

--
2.17.1

Comments

Konrad Dybcio Sept. 1, 2023, 12:20 p.m. UTC | #1
On 1.09.2023 13:43, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> This patch aligns programming sequence as per Qualcomm UFS
> hardware specification.
> 
> changes from v5:
> - Addressed Mani comment to FIELD_PREP and FIELD_FIT.
> - Optimised ufs_qcom_set_core_clk_ctrl API.
> - Updated commit text for few patches to capture more details.
> 
Any reason I received this twice?

Konrad
Andrew Halaney Sept. 1, 2023, 2:56 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 05:13:30PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> This patch aligns programming sequence as per Qualcomm UFS
> hardware specification.

reading this series, it is difficult for me to understand as a user of
the driver if this should have any noticeable effect.

Some of the patches mention that there is no functional change, some
only say align with the HPG but change programming sequence, frequency,
etc if I understand correctly on a quick glance.

I think being a bit verbose in some of the patches with respect to
explaining the effect of the patch (or lack of a noticeable effect)
would be a beneficial improvement to this series if there's another
version.

I agree that aligning with the HPG instead of doing some undefined
sequence is a good idea, I'm just reading some of the changes and
thinking "I have no idea if this is going to fix something (no Fixes:
tag but it almost sounds like one), will this improve something, or will this
just change the programming sequence to a known and recommended
sequence?".

Thanks for the patches,
Andrew
Bjorn Andersson Sept. 1, 2023, 3:18 p.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:56:05AM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 05:13:30PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > This patch aligns programming sequence as per Qualcomm UFS
> > hardware specification.
> 
> reading this series, it is difficult for me to understand as a user of
> the driver if this should have any noticeable effect.
> 
> Some of the patches mention that there is no functional change, some
> only say align with the HPG but change programming sequence, frequency,
> etc if I understand correctly on a quick glance.
> 
> I think being a bit verbose in some of the patches with respect to
> explaining the effect of the patch (or lack of a noticeable effect)
> would be a beneficial improvement to this series if there's another
> version.
> 
> I agree that aligning with the HPG instead of doing some undefined
> sequence is a good idea, I'm just reading some of the changes and
> thinking "I have no idea if this is going to fix something (no Fixes:
> tag but it almost sounds like one), will this improve something, or will this
> just change the programming sequence to a known and recommended
> sequence?".
> 

Very valid feedback, Andrew.

Correct or not, there are a fair amount of users out there who runs the
current implementation. Changes to that should be described in a way
that doesn't depend on inside-knowledge.

Regards,
Bjorn