Re: Change in sysfs topology for libata

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [-Lin, +Lin]

CC Aaron@Intel

>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Lin,
>>
>>  Commit 9a6d6a2ddabbd32c07f6a38b659e5f3db319fa5a introduces a change
>> in sysfs directory for ata controller:
>>
>> Before:
>>            /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2    (ahci controller)
>>            |-- ata1                                (ata port)
>>            |-- host0                               (scsi host)
>>               |-- target0:0:0                      (scsi target)
>>                   |-- 0:0:0:0                      (disk)
>>
>> After:
>>            /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2    (ahci controller)
>>            |-- ata1                                (ata port)
>>                |-- host0                           (scsi host)
>>                    |-- target0:0:0                 (scsi target)
>>                        |-- 0:0:0:0                 (disk)
>>
>> The problem is an ata controller, managed by libata, is still
>> considered by the kernel as a SCSI controller: diverging even more
>> from other SCSI controller sysfs layout is not a good idea.
>> When I wrote libata-transport.c, my plan was to be consistent with SAS
>> objects: for instance, for a SAS controller with a simple SAS topology
>> we have:
>>
>>
>> /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:0c\:00.0/
>> |-- host7/
>>     |-- phy-7:0
>>     |-- phy-7:1
>> ..
>>     |-- phy-7:7
>>     |-- port-7:0
>>         |-- end_device-7\:0
>>             |-- target7:0:0/
>>                 |-- 7:0:0:0
>>     |-- port-7:1
>> ..
>>
>> Similarly, I wanted to represent an ata_port [equivalent to SAS phy]
>> and ata_link [equivalent to SAS port] under scsi_host hostX object,
>> but as far as i remember, when I wrote the code that was not possible,
>> I could not find a clean way to share object references between libata
>> and scsi layer. That's why ata_port object was sitting alongside to
>> the scsi_host object. I have to see if it is possible now.
>>
>> In the meantime, what would be the impact to revert that commit?
>> Do you think melting libata sysfs object into scsi sysfs objects would
>> work with your changes related to pm?

The SATA disk runtime pm and ZPODD(Zero Power ODD) relies on the new
sysfs directory I introduced in commit 9a6d6a2.

Could you show me what's the sysfs directory structure after libata
sysfs object melted into scsi sysfs objects?

Thanks,
Lin Ming

>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gwendal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux