* [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
@ 2022-06-04 20:53 Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-06 2:42 ` Damien Le Moal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sergey Shtylyov @ 2022-06-04 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Le Moal, linux-ide
The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
nonsense from them:
$ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
XFER_PIO_0
Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
$ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
XFER_PIO_4
Fixes: d9027470b886 ("[libata] Add ATA transport class")
Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
This patch is against the 'master' branch of Damien's 'libata.git' repo.
drivers/ata/libata-transport.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
===================================================================
--- libata.orig/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
+++ libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static struct {
{ XFER_PIO_0, "XFER_PIO_0" },
{ XFER_PIO_SLOW, "XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
};
-ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
+ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
/*
* ATA Port attributes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-04 20:53 [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files Sergey Shtylyov
@ 2022-06-06 2:42 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-06 20:38 ` Sergey Shtylyov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Damien Le Moal @ 2022-06-06 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 6/5/22 05:53, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
> nonsense from them:
>
> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
> XFER_PIO_0
>
> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>
> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
> XFER_PIO_4
Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
reword, no ?
What about:
pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>
> Fixes: d9027470b886 ("[libata] Add ATA transport class")
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> ---
> This patch is against the 'master' branch of Damien's 'libata.git' repo.
>
> drivers/ata/libata-transport.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> ===================================================================
> --- libata.orig/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> +++ libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static struct {
> { XFER_PIO_0, "XFER_PIO_0" },
> { XFER_PIO_SLOW, "XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
> };
> -ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
> +ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
>
> /*
> * ATA Port attributes
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-06 2:42 ` Damien Le Moal
@ 2022-06-06 20:38 ` Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-07 0:37 ` Damien Le Moal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sergey Shtylyov @ 2022-06-06 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Le Moal, linux-ide
Hello!
On 6/6/22 5:42 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>> nonsense from them:
>>
>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>> XFER_PIO_0
>>
>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>
>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>> XFER_PIO_4
>
> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>
> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>
> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>
> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
Device?
> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
> reword, no ?
Yes, of course. :-)
> What about:
>
> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>
> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>
> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
Sounds quite tautological... :-)
What about:
{dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
Mostly used by PATA devices.
I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
[...]
MBR, Sergey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-06 20:38 ` Sergey Shtylyov
@ 2022-06-07 0:37 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-07 9:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Damien Le Moal @ 2022-06-07 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 2022/06/07 5:38, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 6/6/22 5:42 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>
>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>> nonsense from them:
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>
>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>
>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>
> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>
>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>
>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>
> Device?
advertise :)
>
>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>> reword, no ?
>
> Yes, of course. :-)
>
>> What about:
>>
>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>
>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>
> Sounds quite tautological... :-)
> What about:
>
> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
> Mostly used by PATA devices.
>
> I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
>
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergey
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-07 0:37 ` Damien Le Moal
@ 2022-06-07 9:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2022-06-08 3:14 ` Damien Le Moal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2022-06-07 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Le Moal, Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 6/7/22 3:37 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>
>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>
>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>
>> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>
>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>
>> Device?
>
> advertise :)
Makes sense now. :-)
>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>> reword, no ?
>>
>> Yes, of course. :-)
>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>
>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>> What about:
>>
>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>> Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>
>> I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
>
> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
It'll be the same tag.
> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)
MBR, Sergey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-07 9:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
@ 2022-06-08 3:14 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-08 10:09 ` Sergey Shtylyov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Damien Le Moal @ 2022-06-08 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergei Shtylyov, Sergey Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 6/7/22 18:49, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 6/7/22 3:37 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>
>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>
>>> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>
> So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>
>>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>>
>>> Device?
>>
>> advertise :)
>
> Makes sense now. :-)
>
>>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>>> reword, no ?
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. :-)
>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>
>>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>>> Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>>
>>> I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
>>
>> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
>
> It'll be the same tag.
OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
>
>> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
>> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
>
> Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)
>
> MBR, Sergey
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-08 3:14 ` Damien Le Moal
@ 2022-06-08 10:09 ` Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-08 10:17 ` Damien Le Moal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sergey Shtylyov @ 2022-06-08 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Le Moal, Sergei Shtylyov, linux-ide
Hello!
On 6/8/22 6:14 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>
>>>> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>
>> So what's your opinion on that idea?
???
>>>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>>
>>>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>>>
>>>> Device?
>>>
>>> advertise :)
>>
>> Makes sense now. :-)
>>
>>>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>>>> reword, no ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course. :-)
>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>>
>>>>> pio_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>> in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> xfer_mode: (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>>
>>>>> dma_mode: (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>> in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>>>> Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>>>
>>>> I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
>>>
>>> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
>>
>> It'll be the same tag.
>
> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/
>>> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
>>> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
>>
>> Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)
MBR, Sergey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-08 10:09 ` Sergey Shtylyov
@ 2022-06-08 10:17 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-08 17:13 ` Sergey Shtylyov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Damien Le Moal @ 2022-06-08 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey Shtylyov, Sergei Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 6/8/22 19:09, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 6/8/22 6:14 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>>> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>>
>>> So what's your opinion on that idea?
>
> ???
Yep, it looks like other subsystems have their doc files listed there. So
we can add them. Will you send a patch for that ?
>> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
>
> Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/
Sorry. I replied a little late. Just squash the patches :)
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files
2022-06-08 10:17 ` Damien Le Moal
@ 2022-06-08 17:13 ` Sergey Shtylyov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sergey Shtylyov @ 2022-06-08 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Le Moal, Sergei Shtylyov, linux-ide
On 6/8/22 1:17 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>>>> Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>>>
>>>> So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>
>> ???
>
> Yep, it looks like other subsystems have their doc files listed there. So
OK, you've finally replied, thanks. :-)
> we can add them. Will you send a patch for that ?
Yes, I'll try to...
>>> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
>>
>> Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/
>
> Sorry. I replied a little late. Just squash the patches :)
Squashing diffs is simple, the main issue lies in merging the change logs...
MBR, Sergey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-08 17:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-04 20:53 [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-06 2:42 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-06 20:38 ` Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-07 0:37 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-07 9:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2022-06-08 3:14 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-08 10:09 ` Sergey Shtylyov
2022-06-08 10:17 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-06-08 17:13 ` Sergey Shtylyov
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.