From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net (008.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864C52F24; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712179080; cv=none; b=XsH//9nLFO4blr/ygfTxT7EuA976oofN7BPzewum+EqOaXR9X1J+3hBYSN7Q9d93C/gwlxdtWVgm+PvHKlBDoYo4j5L+p3UGjm/sUQDAd1fewIzrl2/PN5yjQq+ceNxCNJbNYhzi0cGJhU/ZiZlTOXA3mi5lZqfem7JrPsQVCeo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712179080; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dNO3G1cmq/dc4uXnd299NV+NJSgPbmV3EuF/+cdW3sg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jLmRPUoonjwqYjlVicXl+01skEKX1eIqnnU/j14Rtqjdnrc1hBkZ7pKBRTh+ZuOUR4sBK5FXSNDr7cl4Mo532G/6a/6VIpHgfUrQKa7ABybRag37c1nGqsLA1HQLBfYvxcfQNWXbEXIxxGloZX5f6YH5J6JHrvTlib1p6SXzaQo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=rJZZhzP/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="rJZZhzP/" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4V8yJj5gSnz6Cnk90; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:17:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1712179074; x=1714771075; bh=qlJqcWYZ8uLyD/G2oJ0GBpcH FHOQOHmXJ9SlPfBC4Hw=; b=rJZZhzP/tcPcRNimWDA6jZRibk9mYq983mGfaXmG o6YBMEy3GPdO0LTLYe6XIJ4QPBTO5FhJ6OIKHDG1q3JJbNASJi1q1AMqO86YCwzD 1+zJWMJaCLYgfOkz1PMbLW+AzeCo6mU3pW+Qfbd0FTRwy742YKy1nOAeTdRjmz3c CmVh/v0hzWQIo+J8EuT9QpS4eqqVzEndkKRyKeDS+eAK8S2RzLE/8+TjMiAcFc9g sXTq/WIH2b8HuOA5edKh6hEK0A32Y5AFK3QrC49pyLtdDMycSse4JMDldejqqfpO sjOGhjK5xehrJQ9tFCmpfUIy0/AK13UCRlA7Ou/tk5Kuyg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (008.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id GHddmEJaR5ZG; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:17:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.173] (unknown [104.132.1.77]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4V8yJc1cDWz6Cnk8y; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4b90d403-b18c-42c9-99b4-013eb7fcf8a8@acm.org> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:17:49 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Remove support for old UFSHCI versions To: Avri Altman , "James E . J . Bottomley" , "Martin K . Petersen" Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , Bean Huo , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20240327071714.757-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> <20240327071714.757-2-avri.altman@wdc.com> <66431679-26f0-48eb-8303-35e151481292@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/3/24 12:24, Avri Altman wrote: >> On 3/27/24 00:17, Avri Altman wrote: >>> UFS spec version 2.1 was published more than 10 years ago. It is >>> vanishingly unlikely that even there are out there platforms that uses >>> earlier host controllers, let alone that those ancient platforms will >>> ever run a V6.10 kernel. Thus, remove support of host controllers prior >>> to UFS2.1. >> >> According to this website, Pixel 1 devices have a UFSHCI 2.0 controller: >> https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel-8346.php. There may be other >> smartphones that have a UFSHCI 2.0 controller. Hence, I'm not sure we >> can drop support for UFSHCI 2.0 controllers from the kernel. > Actually the Pixel 1 is an excellent example why we can and should - > It was announced in 2016, running Android 7 with a v4.4 kernel. > Even if you would be able to find a working specimen of that device - > It is not realistic it would ever run a 6.10 kernel. v4.4 is the kernel version of the kernel included in the original software. Multiple users of older smartphones switch to alternative distributions once their device is no longer supported by the manufacturer. These alternatives often include a more recent kernel. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions. Thanks, Bart.