Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: ufs: wb: renaming & cleanups functions

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>]

On 7/1/22 00:46, Jinyoung CHOI wrote:
> The Function names were changed clearly, and the location of the
> comments was modified and added properly.
> 
> In addition, the conditional test of the toggle functions was
> different, so it was modified.
> 
> Unnecessary logs were removed and modified appropriately.

There are too many changes in this patch. Please split this patch, e.g. 
one patch that introduces ufshcd_is_wb_buf_flush_allowed(), one patch 
that renames ufshcd_wb_toggle_flush_during_h8() and its arguments and 
another patch that renames ufshcd_wb_config().

> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> index 0a088b47d557..6253606b93b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufs-sysfs.c
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ static ssize_t wb_on_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>   		 * If the platform supports UFSHCD_CAP_CLK_SCALING, turn WB
>   		 * on/off will be done while clock scaling up/down.
>   		 */
> -		dev_warn(dev, "To control WB through wb_on is not allowed!\n");
> +		dev_warn(dev, "It is not allowed to control WB!\n");

I suggest to change "control" into "configure".

>   static void ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> @@ -1289,9 +1288,10 @@ static int ufshcd_devfreq_scale(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool scale_up)
>   		}
>   	}
>   
> -	/* Enable Write Booster if we have scaled up else disable it */
>   	downgrade_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
>   	is_writelock = false;
> +
> +	/* Enable Write Booster if we have scaled up else disable it */
>   	ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, scale_up);

The above change could be yet another patch.

>   out_unprepare:
> @@ -5715,6 +5715,9 @@ static int __ufshcd_wb_toggle(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool set, enum flag_idn idn)
>   	enum query_opcode opcode = set ? UPIU_QUERY_OPCODE_SET_FLAG :
>   				   UPIU_QUERY_OPCODE_CLEAR_FLAG;
>   
> +	if (!ufshcd_is_wb_allowed(hba))
> +		return -EPERM;
> +

Moving the ufshcd_is_wb_allowed() call from ufshcd_wb_toggle() into 
__ufshcd_wb_toggle() should be yet another patch.

> -	if (!(enable ^ hba->dev_info.wb_enabled))
> +	if (hba->dev_info.wb_enabled == enable)
>   		return 0;

This change is independent of the rest of this patch and hence could be 
yet another patch.

> -	dev_info(hba->dev, "%s Write Booster %s\n",
> -			__func__, enable ? "enabled" : "disabled");

Why has this code been left out?

> -	ret = __ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, set,
> -			QUERY_FLAG_IDN_WB_BUFF_FLUSH_DURING_HIBERN8);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: WB-Buf Flush during H8 %s failed: %d\n",
> -			__func__, set ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
> -		return;
> -	}
> -	dev_dbg(hba->dev, "%s WB-Buf Flush during H8 %s\n",
> -			__func__, set ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> +	ret = __ufshcd_wb_toggle(hba, enable,
> +				 QUERY_FLAG_IDN_WB_BUFF_FLUSH_DURING_HIBERN8);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: failed to %s WB buf flush during H8 %d\n",
> +			__func__, enable ? "enable" : "disable", ret);

The above error message is worse than the original error message. Please 
either keep the original message or change it into something better than 
the original, e.g. "Failed to %s WB buffer flushing during H8".

Thanks,

Bart.