Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@micron.com>
To:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        Joao Lima <Joao.Lima@synopsys.com>,
        "Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version
Thread-Topic: [EXT] [PATCH v2 1/5] scsi: ufs: Allow UFS 3.0 as a valid version
Thread-Index: AQHWGj6R0nTpmn6fGEWz3ZvyHz0xNaiIaq7AgAdFZYCAAGWHUA==
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:59:08 +0000
Message-ID: <BN7PR08MB56847531D0EC603DD2C7B349DBAD0@BN7PR08MB5684.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <cover.1587735561.git.Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
 <c006813f8fc3052eef97d5216e4f31829d7cd10b.1587735561.git.Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
 <SN6PR08MB5693C397D88D16EC43E85490DBD00@SN6PR08MB5693.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <BN8PR12MB3266D1F9B038EF821FA8D503D3AD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR12MB3266D1F9B038EF821FA8D503D3AD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-150, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ee482eb1-5d3a-44ef-3ccf-08d7ec3d1aec
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Apr 2020 12:59:08.4514
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f38a5ecd-2813-4862-b11b-ac1d563c806f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: sGydVbNeeCcFYYP60IhZk8c8nQZnxvFN/PhMdboBOecqBIjuYGrcvjZ42V3hKQvo/I3AiyWpqAjwI8aEW8QPUg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR08MB5074
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> > > @@ -8441,7 +8441,8 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct ufs_hba *hba, void
> > > __iomem *mmio_base, unsigned int irq)
> > >  	if ((hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_10) &&
> > >  	    (hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_11) &&
> > >  	    (hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_20) &&
> > > -	    (hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_21))
> > > +	    (hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_21) &&
> > > +	    (hba->ufs_version !=3D UFSHCI_VERSION_30))
> >
> > I don't think these checkups of UFSHCI version is necessary,  does the =
UFSHCI
> have other version number except these?
> > Is there somebody still v1.0 and v1.1?
>=20
> Probably. I think we can leave them or change the dev_err to a dev_warn.
> This way we have logs in case someone is using a non-supported version.
>=20
> What do you think ?
>=20
Hi, Jose
Seems after your patch, all of current released UFS control versions will b=
e supported except the
version suffix is non-zero. Right?

> ---
> Thanks,
> Jose Miguel Abreu