Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032385AbdIZVuo (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:50:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:57808 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030338AbdIZVum (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:50:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:50:41 -0700 From: Subhash Jadavani To: kehuanlin Cc: vinholikatti@gmail.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kehuanlin@pinecone.net, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: fix wrong command type of UTRD for UFSHCI v2.1 In-Reply-To: <1504691919-30832-1-git-send-email-kehuanlin@pinecone.net> References: <1504691919-30832-1-git-send-email-kehuanlin@pinecone.net> Message-ID: <853cb73a8e7139304bedfc8b59d5b710@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 57 On 2017-09-06 02:58, kehuanlin wrote: > Since the command type of UTRD in UFS 2.1 specification is the same > with > UFS 2.0. And it assumes the future UFS specification will follow the > same > definition. > > Signed-off-by: kehuanlin > --- > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > index 5bc9dc1..c33a2f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c > @@ -2195,10 +2195,11 @@ static int ufshcd_comp_devman_upiu(struct > ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) > u32 upiu_flags; > int ret = 0; > > - if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) > - lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE; > - else > + if ((hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_10) || > + (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_11)) > lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_DEV_MANAGE; > + else > + lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE; > > ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, DMA_NONE); > if (hba->dev_cmd.type == DEV_CMD_TYPE_QUERY) > @@ -2222,10 +2223,11 @@ static int ufshcd_comp_scsi_upiu(struct > ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp) > u32 upiu_flags; > int ret = 0; > > - if (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_20) > - lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE; > - else > + if ((hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_10) || > + (hba->ufs_version == UFSHCI_VERSION_11)) > lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_SCSI; > + else > + lrbp->command_type = UTP_CMD_TYPE_UFS_STORAGE; > > if (likely(lrbp->cmd)) { > ufshcd_prepare_req_desc_hdr(lrbp, &upiu_flags, Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Subhash Jadavani -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project