linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in controller's sysfs node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:29:45 +1000
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Sohaib Mohamed <sohaib.amhmd@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in
 controller's sysfs node

> >
> > +What:                /sys/bus/platform/drivers/ufshcd/*/capabilities/clock_scaling
>
> This shouldn't be linked to as a driver file, it's a device file.  So no
> need for this line.
>
> > +What:                /sys/bus/platform/devices/*.ufs/capabilities/clock_scaling
>
> Since when are all ufs devices platform devices?  Do we not have UFS
> controllers on other types of busses?

I have pretty much copped the structure of the entries across this file. Nearly
all of the entries link both device and driver paths and nearly all of
the entries
mention the platform-based path (which you correctly mentioned is not
factually correct, since we do have controllers on the pci bus). Please advise
if it is ok to keep it like this for consistency or what would be the
appropriate
way to adjust the documentation?
--Daniil