Re: [<PATCH v1> 1/1] scsi: qcom-ufs: Add support for bus voting using ICB framework

[Evan Green]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:02 PM Asutosh Das <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Adapt to the new ICB framework for bus bandwidth voting.
>
> This requires the source/destination port ids.
> Also this requires a tuple of values.
>
> The tuple is for two different paths - from UFS master
> to BIMC slave. The other is from CPU master to UFS slave.
> This tuple consists of the average and peak bandwidth.
>
> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt      |  12 ++
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c                        | 234 ++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.h                        |  20 ++
>  3 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> index a99ed55..94249ef 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> @@ -45,6 +45,18 @@ Optional properties:
>  Note: If above properties are not defined it can be assumed that the supply
>  regulators or clocks are always on.
>
> +* Following bus parameters are required:
> +interconnects
> +interconnect-names
> +- Please refer to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/
> +  for more details on the above.
> +qcom,msm-bus,name - string describing the bus path
> +qcom,msm-bus,num-cases - number of configurations in which ufs can operate in
> +qcom,msm-bus,num-paths - number of paths to vote for
> +qcom,msm-bus,vectors-KBps - Takes a tuple <ib ab>, <ib ab> (2 tuples for 2 num-paths)
> +                           The number of these entries *must* be same as
> +                           num-cases.

I think we can do away with all of the qcom* ones, right? This should
be achievable with just interconnects and interconnect-names.

Also, is this patch based on a downstream tree? I don't recognize a
lot of the context. We'll need a patch that's based on an upstream
tree.

I'll wait to review the rest of the patch until rev 2, since it's hard
to reason about the patch with all the downstream stuff in there.
-Evan