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: <43cd0057-c6d8-bc92-08f4-d767336d2cfe@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:09:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: qcom: Add support for scaling
 interconnects
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>
References: <20230731145020.41262-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20230731145020.41262-3-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230731145020.41262-3-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/31/23 07:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> +struct __ufs_qcom_bw_table {
> +	u32 mem_bw;
> +	u32 cfg_bw;
> +} ufs_qcom_bw_table[MODE_MAX + 1][QCOM_UFS_MAX_GEAR + 1][QCOM_UFS_MAX_LANE + 1] = {
> +	[MODE_MIN][0][0]		   = { 0,		0 }, /* Bandwidth values in KB/s */
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 922,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1844,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 3688,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 7376,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1844,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 3688,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 7376,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_PWM][UFS_PWM_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 14752,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 127796,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 255591,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1492582,	102400 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 2915200,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 255591,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 511181,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RA][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,	409600 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_1] = { 149422,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_1] = { 298189,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_1] = { 1492582,	102400 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_1] = { 2915200,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G1][UFS_LANE_2] = { 298189,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G2][UFS_LANE_2] = { 596378,		1000 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G3][UFS_LANE_2] = { 1492582,	204800 },
> +	[MODE_HS_RB][UFS_HS_G4][UFS_LANE_2] = { 2915200,	409600 },
> +	[MODE_MAX][0][0]		    = { 7643136,	307200 },
> +};

Why has the above data structure not been declared as 'static const'?

Thanks,

Bart.