Hi Steev,
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 11:15 -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On 6/23/20 8:53 PM, Stanley Chu wrote:
> > Hi Steev,
> >
> > Please help try below simple patch to see if above WriteBooster messages
> > can be eliminated.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file ch
On 6/23/20 8:53 PM, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Hi Steev,
>
> Please help try below simple patch to see if above WriteBooster messages
> can be eliminated.
>
>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshc
Hi Kyuho,
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 11:06 +0900, Kyuho Choi wrote:
> Hi Stanley,
>
> On 6/24/20, Stanley Chu wrote:
> > Hi Steev,
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 20:10 -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >> On 6/23/20 1:51 AM, Kyuho Choi wrote:
> >> > Hi Avri,
> >> >
> >> > On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wro
Hi Stanley,
On 6/24/20, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Hi Steev,
>
> On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 20:10 -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> On 6/23/20 1:51 AM, Kyuho Choi wrote:
>> > Hi Avri,
>> >
>> > On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wrote:
>> >>> AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
>> >>>
>>
Hi Steev,
Thanks for share log!.
On 6/24/20, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> On 6/23/20 1:51 AM, Kyuho Choi wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wrote:
AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
I'd check latest linux scsi branch and ufshcd_wb_config
Hi Steev,
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 20:10 -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On 6/23/20 1:51 AM, Kyuho Choi wrote:
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wrote:
> >>> AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
> >>>
> >>> I'd check latest linux scsi branch and ufshcd_wb_conf
On 6/23/20 1:51 AM, Kyuho Choi wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wrote:
>>> AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
>>>
>>> I'd check latest linux scsi branch and ufshcd_wb_config function's
>>> called without device capability check.
>> Please grep ufshcd_wb_p
Hi Avri,
On 6/23/20, Avri Altman wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
>>
>> I'd check latest linux scsi branch and ufshcd_wb_config function's
>> called without device capability check.
> Please grep ufshcd_wb_probe.
>
I got your point, but as I mentioned, t
>
> AFAIK, this device are ufs 2.1. It's not support writebooster.
>
> I'd check latest linux scsi branch and ufshcd_wb_config function's
> called without device capability check.
Please grep ufshcd_wb_probe.
Hi Rob,
On 6/22/20, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:58 AM Bjorn Andersson
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun 21 Jun 00:40 PDT 2020, Avri Altman wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM Asutosh Das
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The write performance of TLC NAND is considera
On 6/21/20 11:50 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> This looks like a device issue to be taken with the flash vendor:
>> There's no way for a end-user to file a bug report with the flash vendor
>> on a device bought from an OEM and even if they would accept the bug
>> report they wouldn't re-provision the fl
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:58 AM Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
>
> On Sun 21 Jun 00:40 PDT 2020, Avri Altman wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM Asutosh Das
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The write performance of TLC NAND is considerably
> > > > lower than SLC NAND. Using SLC NAND as a
On Sun 21 Jun 00:40 PDT 2020, Avri Altman wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM Asutosh Das
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The write performance of TLC NAND is considerably
> > > lower than SLC NAND. Using SLC NAND as a WriteBooster
> > > Buffer enables the write request to be processed with
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM Asutosh Das
> wrote:
> >
> > The write performance of TLC NAND is considerably
> > lower than SLC NAND. Using SLC NAND as a WriteBooster
> > Buffer enables the write request to be processed with
> > lower latency and improves the overall write performance.
> >
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM Asutosh Das wrote:
>
> The write performance of TLC NAND is considerably
> lower than SLC NAND. Using SLC NAND as a WriteBooster
> Buffer enables the write request to be processed with
> lower latency and improves the overall write performance.
>
> Adds support for s
15 matches
Mail list logo
