[PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Sergey Shtylyov]

The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
nonsense from them:

$ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
XFER_PIO_0

Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:

$ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
XFER_PIO_4

Fixes: d9027470b886 ("[libata] Add ATA transport class")
Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

---
This patch is against the 'master' branch of Damien's 'libata.git' repo.

 drivers/ata/libata-transport.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
===================================================================
--- libata.orig/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
+++ libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static struct {
 	{ XFER_PIO_0,			"XFER_PIO_0" },
 	{ XFER_PIO_SLOW,		"XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
 };
-ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
+ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
 
 /*
  * ATA Port attributes

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Damien Le Moal]

On 6/5/22 05:53, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
> nonsense from them:
> 
> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
> XFER_PIO_0
> 
> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
> 
> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
> XFER_PIO_4

Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:

pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
                in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.

xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode

dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
                in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.

which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
reword, no ?

What about:

pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
                in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.

xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode

dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
                in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.


> 
> Fixes: d9027470b886 ("[libata] Add ATA transport class")
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> ---
> This patch is against the 'master' branch of Damien's 'libata.git' repo.
> 
>  drivers/ata/libata-transport.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> ===================================================================
> --- libata.orig/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> +++ libata/drivers/ata/libata-transport.c
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static struct {
>  	{ XFER_PIO_0,			"XFER_PIO_0" },
>  	{ XFER_PIO_SLOW,		"XFER_PIO_SLOW" }
>  };
> -ata_bitfield_name_match(xfer,ata_xfer_names)
> +ata_bitfield_name_search(xfer, ata_xfer_names)
>  
>  /*
>   * ATA Port attributes


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Sergey Shtylyov]

Hello!

On 6/6/22 5:42 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:

>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>> nonsense from them:
>>
>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>> XFER_PIO_0
>>
>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>
>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>> XFER_PIO_4
> 
> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:

   Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
   Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?

> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
> 
> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
> 
> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
> 
> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported

   Device?

> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
> reword, no ?

   Yes, of course. :-)

> What about:
> 
> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
> 
> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
> 
> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.

   Sounds quite tautological... :-)
   What about:

{dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
                Mostly used by PATA devices.

   I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?

[...]

MBR, Sergey

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Damien Le Moal]

On 2022/06/07 5:38, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 6/6/22 5:42 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> 
>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>> nonsense from them:
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>
>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>
>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
> 
>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
> 
>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>
>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
> 
>    Device?

advertise :)

> 
>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>> reword, no ?
> 
>    Yes, of course. :-)
> 
>> What about:
>>
>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>
>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
> 
>    Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>    What about:
> 
> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>                 Mostly used by PATA devices.
> 
>    I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?

Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.

> 
> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergey


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Sergei Shtylyov]

On 6/7/22 3:37 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:

[...]
>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>
>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>
>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>
>>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?

   So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>
>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>
>>    Device?
> 
> advertise :)

   Makes sense now. :-)

>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>> reword, no ?
>>
>>    Yes, of course. :-)
>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>
>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>
>>    Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>>    What about:
>>
>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>>                 Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>
>>    I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
> 
> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update

   It'll be the same tag.

> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.

   Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)

MBR, Sergey

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Damien Le Moal]

On 6/7/22 18:49, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 6/7/22 3:37 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> 
> [...]
>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>
>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>
>>>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
> 
>    So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>
>>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>>
>>>    Device?
>>
>> advertise :)
> 
>    Makes sense now. :-)
> 
>>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>>> reword, no ?
>>>
>>>    Yes, of course. :-)
>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>
>>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>
>>>    Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>>>    What about:
>>>
>>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>>>                 Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>>
>>>    I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
>>
>> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
> 
>    It'll be the same tag.

OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.

> 
>> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
>> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
> 
>    Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)
> 
> MBR, Sergey


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Sergey Shtylyov]

Hello!

On 6/8/22 6:14 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>
>>>>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>
>>    So what's your opinion on that idea?

   ???

>>>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>>
>>>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer modes supported by the device when
>>>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> which seems incorrect/badly worded for pio_mode and dma_mode. Since these
>>>>> 2 sysfs attributes do not actually device the pio mask (list of supported
>>>>
>>>>    Device?
>>>
>>> advertise :)
>>
>>    Makes sense now. :-)
>>
>>>>> pio modes) but the pio mode that will be used for that device, we should
>>>>> reword, no ?
>>>>
>>>>    Yes, of course. :-)
>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>>
>>>>> pio_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>>                 in PIO mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>>
>>>>> xfer_mode:      (RO) Current transfer mode
>>>>>
>>>>> dma_mode:       (RO) Transfer mode used by the device when
>>>>>                 in DMA mode. Mostly used by PATA device.
>>>>
>>>>    Sounds quite tautological... :-)
>>>>    What about:
>>>>
>>>> {dma|pio}_mode: (RO) {DMA|PIO} transfer mode used by the device.
>>>>                 Mostly used by PATA devices.
>>>>
>>>>    I think this should be done in the same patch. Or would you prefer 2 patches?
>>>
>>> Let's do 2 patches. Not sure if you can find a fixes tag for the doc update
>>
>>    It'll be the same tag.
> 
> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.

   Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/

>>> though. But we should not aggregate the 2 attributes as you did. These doc files
>>> have a defined format and may not be happy with that merged syntax.
>>
>>    Sorry about that -- I did that just for the mail... :-)

MBR, Sergey

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Damien Le Moal]

On 6/8/22 19:09, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 6/8/22 6:14 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>>>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>>
>>>    So what's your opinion on that idea?
> 
>    ???

Yep, it looks like other subsystems have their doc files listed there. So
we can add them. Will you send a patch for that ?

>> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
> 
>    Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/

Sorry. I replied a little late. Just squash the patches :)

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-transport: fix {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files

[Sergey Shtylyov]

On 6/8/22 1:17 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>>> The {dma|pio|xfer}_mode sysfs files are incorrectly handled by the
>>>>>>>> ata_bitfield_name_match() macro which leads to reading such kind of
>>>>>>>> nonsense from them:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>>> XFER_UDMA_7, XFER_UDMA_6, XFER_UDMA_5, XFER_UDMA_4, XFER_MW_DMA_4,
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_6, XFER_PIO_5, XFER_PIO_4, XFER_PIO_3, XFER_PIO_2, XFER_PIO_1,
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the correct ata_bitfield_name_search() macro fixes that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ cat /sys/class/ata_device/dev3.0/pio_mode
>>>>>>>> XFER_PIO_4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks good, but Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-ata says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Completely forgot that the sysfs files are documented as ABIs... :-(
>>>>>>    Hm, shouldn't that file be added to the libata's entry in MAINTAINERS?
>>>>
>>>>    So what's your opinion on that idea?
>>
>>    ???
> 
> Yep, it looks like other subsystems have their doc files listed there. So

   OK, you've finally replied, thanks. :-)

> we can add them. Will you send a patch for that ?

   Yes, I'll try to...
 
>>> OK. Then let's do code and doc fixes in one patch, not 2.
>>
>>    Doh! Just when I did 2 patches... :-/
> 
> Sorry. I replied a little late. Just squash the patches :)

   Squashing diffs is simple, the main issue lies in merging the change logs...

MBR, Sergey