[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAONX=-d-_2bXqf0TCjdJ1u+B3cU3ZkP9WCu3QxqSZT-v3E_4BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:08:05 +1000
From: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: core: print capabilities in controller's sysfs node
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:37 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> This code change includes all of the UFSHCD_CAP_* constants in the
> kernel ABI. Is that really what we want? I'm wondering whether it
> perhaps would be better only to export those capabilities to user space
> that user space needs to know about.
Adding the filtering would introduce an extra maintenance burden and
will likely go out
of sync. I don't see harm in exposing all capabilities, both intrinsic
to the controller and
negotiated with the device. Do you see any scenario where that would be harmful?
--Daniil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists