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 10:32:14 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...omium.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

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 06:29:45PM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> > >
> > > +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?

Ah, ok, that's odd.  Let's just leave this as-is for now, hopefully
someone else cleans this up later.

thanks,

greg k-h