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 949C9178CEE; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:29:39 +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=1712770181; cv=none; b=hFPnpgR/yQo36uNVoWpsIuY73yTjUOwLn36+N4S+oGGcx8bz+Ncl/iqWC8NGx1MgyysvzqisppPc+LcQM7EkXcxOAIBocvDLihwcg13yU5OfzNcMPcOMtt5CmBDq4eqEhS5yd36LPStCHP1kqmnKGkScRUgCuC6q7i8pXxfiKVM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712770181; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FOUarcCd37+mdyoB5X+/EZhHU0hgvYzQS2orUbaNveg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ppttTWivc+J6lANqpqLIlrhjssByJPnMYmdY7Bo5T5XxncQfs4uHuSim4f7fFAwgo9jsA/BaV+JM2+anGQYxfdkjd6XxUqM5WQ+VvLOeen6rLfuxrfUZ2V7Pi+9d31Yg6C0uAmqTGTR8qtaNE4kDsv7v3caio/YuVuIRI+/b62A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine 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=1uyU8lgt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine 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="1uyU8lgt" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VF8vx1X6NzlgVnF; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:29:33 +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:references:content-language:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1712770171; x=1715362172; bh=/ejLhzmQMUqK5UmgZEEMQYhm 2HOU1qT+IdJIitt7/54=; b=1uyU8lgtDUWhSfRwtwlS+jbrXEXd/mro0Fa9pG2a BnDV8TDIVggxjeOCobxsdRGEq5v7oZWJ0iMyaNHJNuwwFPP3/h0WU03w22GCGc+X Ulgvb4Jdp9JdIVCfaUx3Ezmf3OiCx1tzpX5BPBIen02Uy4IT9JXruG8OPeEm1n+c LR6c0VLnJItLeGtFU4GKHd3OBqG//RDV1RhaxVSWPKWvG1MdVRA4hXodOYwlVd8/ QFaRJlByCB0q9U3gVbC12yT2kM/9OXRCFqRrUH7Orx3DIGNLgZfe2NQkG2s+0cRS Y2UnJHrxlpBznDCsTMZrJQfFmIrb+e5/3tQ359JvYF01XQ== 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 Lhg5OmLnP2t5; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.125.77.89] (unknown [104.132.0.89]) (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 4VF8vs1DCxzlgTsK; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <8b3fd7b3-3fad-4baf-8df5-55fe0fdc9438@acm.org> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:29:26 -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 v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: Remove support for old UFSHCI versions Content-Language: en-US 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: <20240407060412.856-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> <20240407060412.856-2-avri.altman@wdc.com> <37c51970-1408-4a71-926a-780c663e5572@acm.org> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/10/24 00:06, Avri Altman wrote: > And the commit log say: > To be extra cautious, leave out support for > UFSHCI2.0 as well, and just remove support of host controllers prior > to UFS2.0. > > Isn't that clear enough? In the description of this patch I see "leave out support for UFSHCI2.0 as well". I read this as "leave out UFSHCI 2.0 support from the driver". Apparently you meant "leave out removal of UFSHCI 2.0 support from this patch"? Thanks, Bart.