Re: [PATCH v4] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in controller's sysfs node

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

On 8/1/22 14:29, Daniil Lunev wrote:
>> Please change "can not / can be enabled" into "is not supported by the
>> host controller / is supported by the host controller".
>
> That would be incorrect. The "caps" variable semantics is a bit weird
> in the sense that it is used at times to convey "active" 
> capabilities, not just supported one. For example, for the 
> writebooster capability to be present in caps, first controller 
> driver should indicate it is ready to support it, then the part that 
> is attached to the host controller has to indicate support in the 
> device descriptor, then WB has to be configured and its lifetime
> should not be exhausted. If any of those parameters are not
> satisfied, the capability will be removed from the set despite 
> generally being supported. I am not sure how to properly word it, but
> just saying "controller supports it" would be counter-factual
> (especially since the controller doesn't really knows anything about
> writebooster per-se, it is part's functionality). What would be
> suggested wording in that case?
Given the above I think we can keep the current wording. This also makes 
me wonder why the UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN flag occurs in the hba->caps member 
variable. That member variable is used to track controller capabilities. 
My understanding is that the WriteBooster functionality is a UFS device 
feature and also that no host controller support is required to control 
the WriteBooster feature.

Thanks,

Bart.