On 9/28/22 11:17, Jason Yan wrote:
>
> On 2022/9/28 6:57, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 9/27/22 21:39, Jason Yan wrote:
>>> The attached phy id finding is open coded. Now we can replace it with
>>> sas_find_attached_phy_id(). To keep consistent, the return value of
>>> pm8001_dev_found_notify() is also changed to -ENODEV after calling
>>> sas_find_attathed_phy_id() failed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c | 18 ++++++------------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> index 8e3f2f9ddaac..042c0843de1a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> @@ -645,22 +645,16 @@ static int pm8001_dev_found_notify(struct domain_device *dev)
>>> pm8001_device->dcompletion = &completion;
>>> if (parent_dev && dev_is_expander(parent_dev->dev_type)) {
>>> int phy_id;
>>> - struct ex_phy *phy;
>>> - for (phy_id = 0; phy_id < parent_dev->ex_dev.num_phys;
>>> - phy_id++) {
>>> - phy = &parent_dev->ex_dev.ex_phy[phy_id];
>>> - if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)
>>> - == SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr)) {
>>> - pm8001_device->attached_phy = phy_id;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> - if (phy_id == parent_dev->ex_dev.num_phys) {
>>> +
>>> + phy_id = sas_find_attached_phy_id(&parent_dev->ex_dev, dev);
>>> + if (phy_id == -ENODEV) {
>>> pm8001_dbg(pm8001_ha, FAIL,
>>> "Error: no attached dev:%016llx at ex:%016llx.\n",
>>> SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr),
>>> SAS_ADDR(parent_dev->sas_addr));
>>> - res = -1;
>>> + res = phy_id;
>>
>> Nit:
>>
>> res = -ENODEV would be a lot clearer.
>> Or do:
>>
>> if (phy_id < 0) {
>> ...
>> ret = phy_id;
>> } ...
>>
>
> This boils down to personal preferences. I'd like to change to the
> latter one if no objections.
Either work for me. The point is to preferably have something consistent
with the return value from sas_find_attached_phy_id() and not playing
games with it. So yes, the second one is fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>> No ?
>>
>>> + } else {
>>> + pm8001_device->attached_phy = phy_id;
>>> }
>>> } else {
>>> if (dev->dev_type == SAS_SATA_DEV) {
>>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
