[PATCH v1] ufs: core: fix hwq_id type and value
Peter Wang (王信友)
peter.wang at mediatek.com
Tue May 6 21:03:24 PDT 2025
On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 09:15 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> Is this change really necessary? I like the current behavior because
> it
> makes it easy to figure out whether or not MCQ has been enabled. Even
> if
> others would agree with this change, I think that the "Fixes:" and
> "Cc:
> stable" tags are overkill because I don't see this as a bug fix but
> rather as a behavior change that is not a bug fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Hi Bart,
Whether it is necessary or not depends on how we define 'necessary.'
If the criterion is simply to avoid errors, then indeed, this patch
is not necessary. However, if we are addressing the warning caused
by incorrect behavior (assigning int to u32), then it is necessary
to fix it. After all, we shouldn't just be satisfied with avoiding
errors, we should strive to make the Linux kernel as perfect as
possible, shouldn't we?
Additionally, there are many ways to determine whether MCQ is enabled,
including reading the host capability or checking hba->mcq_enabled,
etc.
Moreover, MCQ is not a feature that trun on and off at runtime.
It is at the end of the UFS initialization that the status of MCQ
is determined, so it shouldn't be necessary to rely on this to
determine whether MCQ is enabled, right?
Thanks
Peter
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list