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
