From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream] libata: export local port number through /sys Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:10:39 +0100 Message-ID: <5136EBEF.7070303@suse.de> References: <1359049929-17069-1-git-send-email-dmilburn@redhat.com> <512BD1DA.80305@redhat.com> <513613D0.9090904@suse.de> <20130305230430.GA14118@dhcp-10-15-1-70.hsv.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50580 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270Ab3CFHKo (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 02:10:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130305230430.GA14118@dhcp-10-15-1-70.hsv.redhat.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: David Milburn Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, kay@vrfy.org, coughlan@redhat.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, gwendal@google.com On 03/06/2013 12:04 AM, David Milburn wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 02/26/2013 04:26 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:04 PM, David Milburn >>> wrote: >>>> David Milburn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Export . format through /sys >>>>> >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/link1.1/dev1.1.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/link1.1/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/ata_port/ata1.1 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/link2.2/dev2.2.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/link2.2/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/ata_port/ata2.2 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/link3.3/dev3.3.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/link3.3/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/ata_port/ata3.3 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/link4.4/dev4.4.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/link4.4/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/ata_port/ata4.4 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/link5.5/dev5.5.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/link5.5/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/ata_port/ata5.5 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6 >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/link6.6/dev6.6.0/ata_device >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/link6.6/ata_link >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/ata_port >>>>> ./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/ata_port/ata6.6 >>>>> >> Hmm. >> >> Can't say I like the 'global port' notation. >> Personally I would prefer to have a sysfs attribute for the local >> port number, and have path_id get it from there. >> >> For 95% of all cases the above is just an information duplication >> (ie it'll only provide a real value for udev, but not for the user). >> >> So, please, use a sysfs attribute for the local port and keep the >> numbering as it is. > > Hi Hannes, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Would this patch be acceptable to everyone? > I would prefer having it named 'port_no' instead of 'local_port_no'. Other than that the patch is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks. Cheers, Hannes --=20 Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend=F6rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N=FCrnberg)