On Thu, 2018-08-09 at 22:09 +-0000, Avri Altman wrote: +AD4- +AD4APg- We didn't add any sysfs attribute to those classes, and I don't expect any to be added, +AD4- +AD4APg- as I tried to explain in the commit: +AD4- +AD4APg- +ACI-Those classes are left empty for now, as ufs-sysfs already contains +AD4- +AD4APg- an abundant amount of attributes.+ACI- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg- Practically, this infrastructure provides the bsg device files /dev/+ADw-xxx-id+AD4-. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg- Anyway, if you think it's better, I will try to switch it as you suggested. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4-My concern is that no port concept is defined in the UFS standard and hence that users +AD4- +AD4-will be confused if they see a UFS port object in sysfs. +AD4- I agree. Its a poor choice. +AD4- One of the reasons for this awkward name, is that I wanted to distinguish between +AD4- a single host object, and a more-than-one bsg device objects - see the snippet from the commit message below. +AD4- So adding an index to host+ADw-id+AD4- does not serve this purpose. +AD4- An immediate use-case that we had in mind for this infrastructure, aside from provisioning and various management tasks, +AD4- Is that it can serve as a testing and validation environment, where the multiplicity of those devices will show its value. Hello Avri, I'm confused. Why do you want to have more than one bsg device node per UFS SCSI host? According to what I found in the UFS specification each UFS host communicates with exactly one UFS device. Does a UFS SCSI host correspond to a UFS host? If so, why is there a need to have more than one bsg device node per UFS SCSI host? +AD4- +ACI-... +AD4- In addition to the basic SCSI core objects this transport class +AD4- introduces two additional (currently empty) class objects: +AD4- +IBw-ufs-host+IB0- and +IBw-ufs-port+IB0-. There is only one +IBw-ufs-host+IB0- in the +AD4- system, but can be more-than-one +IBw-ufs-ports+IB0-. +AD4- +AD4- ...+ACI- Since both the ufs-host and ufs-port objects are empty, can both be left out? Thanks, Bart.
