From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AB24763F6; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708453188; cv=none; b=VwHjudjnSRF8JBZYDx0Lf89Domxh8+Vp6dggHqOxygeooZjm9FA30HaahSGtnS+sLkUwXifdU3QWOaZEOy8qOwRFMwQRQEqy9aRj/PuYx5L+1jNsPAqL5gY61FTWXuADCOvKlVrgXafR3io8ZhuENpYDkP0wk4UcfJgz5uaiEbQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708453188; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jyYnr1vl6x18LWQLd7EauTB9Xo3hvmJzMJZ0083i9Y4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=t+QmX37YxoXvTa+UHl7vmdMDq60eaW02dmtno2j6v516+jW31SnDy4OEiZTirik5HiDoHOovzVFPs3YWjGNXLBcqb31e3eSEPssPmhxlDkZ1y1rhdIdgxm2YsAsU9hGorsBV6Ll1pqn3Ur9T2feW0KrCM9RFJbr8lkcQyzVy9G8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d934c8f8f7so54620035ad.2; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:19:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708453187; x=1709057987; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IIaEw1j+qBtvH9M5w+a4/XEf+88yuJ80F8Q41APfGUI=; b=wZyNewfMZsu822YNske5TKT67ENt2f9gQWvWXLcxEYcXhyWGYZS6bG/2sEQipUT7SC xgDyRogRkGz/jHQSkgFCiOuiHE2PHkSEoNlOCzvZzmK7dwEaO1ej3Czhs287cmXyEM+F 799C7kMzozAleJ9ITzjBOWS+VXhjuiGoA3504BLI/qpAw3gJ/qAg5vD2Ay3e6J8MVxaD u2CuhkKGFmOirazUhpqpP9ews3fkMLooHRqqoYxuutxgYJ0jg8ocxiCnYmQ5G9A0cZHm o+Yk0EJUlH8fy1ZeBkYC5UmBiYDQbWOGM6biQ8s3nv1yX5g5X6kTIu3RTp+mRp7Ktlko 1+QA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXT0rJUgFydKuLf7KW/42/oskAtUffBaaaGiQIQ8oew7mX1uAZ+3bSSBNv2OyLAJ0bMC0Ss3YvcP9lfNlvTAn2osQDK3lS/UYzOaHcH3GJsUKRqFpkQbOHJZW3yF+jrRtm+XEKpyN/HYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy9OjrYt3myFydTaw3d+bKz0cNJx7h7aHa0Kx5rdtp5moVfm+S3 5Y0PNLKsHYsbA+MV7Z+fb+SgJqIjaRHkDolEIhyT2KnYgdTEbImN X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFLKIJ8T5RC9P8/uZ8FZkGizTQrrQBxZm4RJgH2uR30HVY5oRcERKtInkYamNv2sQyhKl6Puw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:22c6:b0:1db:d42f:fde9 with SMTP id y6-20020a17090322c600b001dbd42ffde9mr10215831plg.41.1708453186714; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:19:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:0:1000:8411:455a:b76d:46a7:7189? ([2620:0:1000:8411:455a:b76d:46a7:7189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f12-20020a17090274cc00b001da1fae8a73sm6519834plt.12.2024.02.20.10.19.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:19:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:19:45 -0800 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] scsi: ufs: core: Fix setup_xfer_req invocation Content-Language: en-US To: Rohit Ner Cc: Can Guo , Bean Huo , Stanley Chu , "Martin K. Petersen" , Jaegeuk Kim , Avri Altman , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240220090805.2886914-1-rohitner@google.com> <1920a2f6-e398-47af-a5d7-9dad9c70e03d@acm.org> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/20/24 09:58, Rohit Ner wrote: > Do you propose to remove this callback altogether? This callback should > either support both transfer modes or none. The only UFSHCI controller I know of that needs this callback is the Exynos UFSHCI controller. As far as I know there are Exynos UFSHCI controllers that support UFSHCI 3.0 but UFSHCI 4.0 Exynos controllers are not yet available. Standard compliant controllers should not use the .setup_xfer_req() callback. As you may know invoking that callback means performing an indirect function call. Indirect function calls are slower than direct calls, especially if speculative execution vulnerability security mitigations are enabled. Bart.