From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (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 40CE020ADE7; Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728409358; cv=none; b=nKCJhvagWOX1Kj74Z34VXXtM0nuQ9RSmyrPbSFNqRVXHfHqqRwCZPU3s2Xb3rjyhDtXYLYR1Eu+NssiqvHvdMLZlIcxBTEWCdEXDLDfV/xmFeFKg4SCgxdtM2AO573ctpezi1qQvIxNh2jziSOcsRQGLv3YzWekeMbsluQfs0p0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728409358; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Q0g58HqaOxFLx9hSEYKxy3f3Vj1QxlCfdqMvR4YEnDw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jpaD8CCIuvrLNzwr/FaZmLlIWaolsGcAS0jzQ+Jc6QHVdhLrk5baVtq2mLNVBNWJDzM5sKIc7oE3Juae80pUUwn93Q286m/9NfSvUmTSsC7gqli5oi3qBYd+WEydlHJWfPUxxAGMohI91ge/uBqqE1yM/FnSyQn8MWHg4R7qWzM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject 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=N9XvX3s8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject 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="N9XvX3s8" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XNNdS4vhbzlgTWP; Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:42:36 +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=1728409351; x=1731001352; bh=JZhci7ma0ai9ive6gkNamfTH wDVRA3njSn1SwC/E96M=; b=N9XvX3s8soO5sMEkAdmxItaDHdgrKxW2hTbYaEOL mzlIhD8VviJN79VbqITDTqIuK5YXmx3olER6VDQwqhu/8e2+m26VhWBi75e2ZGYp Lt8er3qNvXrnXklccJ57YcAu8aCijgsWbC3z1iaSeLpiFMWtBxk0jf73KHsvS2JX gY0kpOue0Ds/hnD+7He7IccpooDuxad0oeeTOJTMUZJx4Ia+GJZmE1iYP37i1ePP gPrC3UkvM451uiRfPhwk+28TV+awDgrccHkTRT9y36PQNsECg7TeyBbFDuPkVEW9 AG8zb2iZaYfb45N5JgVKGweQMCIXwJIMruIROwFIjWzNew== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id gT6BVE5RkjYH; Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (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 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4XNNdH2mCzzlgTWK; Tue, 8 Oct 2024 17:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <66d8938c-3bf8-49c3-b42a-e2c32f1d1338@acm.org> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:42:25 -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] scsi: ufs: core: check asymmetric connected lanes To: SEO HOYOUNG , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, beanhuo@micron.com, kwangwon.min@samsung.com, kwmad.kim@samsung.com, sh425.lee@samsung.com, quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com, cpgs@samsung.com, h10.kim@samsung.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com, wkon.kim@samsung.com References: <20241008063842.82769-1-hy50.seo@samsung.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20241008063842.82769-1-hy50.seo@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/7/24 11:38 PM, SEO HOYOUNG wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > index 24a32e2fd75e..1381eb7d506a 100644 > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > @@ -4540,6 +4540,14 @@ static int ufshcd_get_max_pwr_mode(struct ufs_hba *hba) > return -EINVAL; > } > > + if (pwr_info->lane_rx != pwr_info->lane_tx) { > + dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: asymmetric connected lanes. rx=%d, tx=%d\n", > + __func__, > + pwr_info->lane_rx, > + pwr_info->lane_tx); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > /* > * First, get the maximum gears of HS speed. > * If a zero value, it means there is no HSGEAR capability. > @@ -8579,7 +8587,8 @@ static int ufshcd_device_params_init(struct ufs_hba *hba) > hba->dev_info.f_power_on_wp_en = flag; > > /* Probe maximum power mode co-supported by both UFS host and device */ > - if (ufshcd_get_max_pwr_mode(hba)) > + ret = ufshcd_get_max_pwr_mode(hba); > + if (ret) > dev_err(hba->dev, > "%s: Failed getting max supported power mode\n", > __func__); I see two independent changes in the above patch. Should this patch perhaps be split into two patches? Thanks, Bart.