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
