Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a74ec294-9701-9842-bec3-84b624f8850a@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 14:42:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in controller's
 sysfs node
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Sohaib Mohamed <sohaib.amhmd@gmail.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220729151301.v4.1.Ibf9efc9be50783eeee55befa2270b7d38552354c@changeid>
 <1ca16b27-21e5-3537-400a-25cdae52396e@acm.org>
 <CAONX=-eknyxTsM21gW6ruaCoov3oJB12g871Wmiq+ibDm4QZCA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAONX=-eknyxTsM21gW6ruaCoov3oJB12g871Wmiq+ibDm4QZCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/1/22 14:29, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>> Please change "can not / can be enabled" into "is not supported by the
>> host controller / is supported by the host controller".
>
> That would be incorrect. The "caps" variable semantics is a bit weird
> in the sense that it is used at times to convey "active" 
> capabilities, not just supported one. For example, for the 
> writebooster capability to be present in caps, first controller 
> driver should indicate it is ready to support it, then the part that 
> is attached to the host controller has to indicate support in the 
> device descriptor, then WB has to be configured and its lifetime
> should not be exhausted. If any of those parameters are not
> satisfied, the capability will be removed from the set despite 
> generally being supported. I am not sure how to properly word it, but
> just saying "controller supports it" would be counter-factual
> (especially since the controller doesn't really knows anything about
> writebooster per-se, it is part's functionality). What would be
> suggested wording in that case?
Given the above I think we can keep the current wording. This also makes 
me wonder why the UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN flag occurs in the hba->caps member 
variable. That member variable is used to track controller capabilities. 
My understanding is that the WriteBooster functionality is a UFS device 
feature and also that no host controller support is required to control 
the WriteBooster feature.

Thanks,

Bart.