Hi Stanislav. Thanks for taking a look. Responses below. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:04 AM Stanislav Nijnikov <Stanislav.Nijnikov@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Evan, > I have some generic notes: > - Why to create new sysfs entries for the configuration descriptor fields if they are just duplication of fields in the device and unit descriptors? And the sysfs representation of the device and unit descriptors is existing already. Well, UFS describes them as different descriptors. I worry that if I add a bunch of clever logic to hide the config descriptor behind other descriptors, there might be trouble later if 1) there is a quirky device that doesn't reflect the values between descriptors quite the same way or at the same time, or 2) if a later UFS spec adds more configuration descriptor fields that don't exactly reflect into other non-config descriptors, the cleverness will look awkward. > - It would be nice to have some "packet" mode allowing to gather configuration changes and apply them at once, not one by one. That's definitely doable. Do you think it's needed? I suppose if there were a device that truly allowed you to do only a single write to the config descriptor, then the commit style would be needed. The two devices I've tested (Toshiba and Samsung) allow multiple writes to the config descriptor, which makes me lean towards not needing the batch-and-commit style, since if you get interrupted you can simply try again. I'm happy to do either, though. > - Why to put documentation update in the separate patches? Well, in case some piece of this turned out to be controversial, I wanted to allow for the option of taking these changes independently, without the concern of missing the documentation. I'm happy to squash all the documentation changes into one if that's preferred. -Evan
