lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] scsi: pm8001: use dev_and_phy_addr_same() instead of open coded
From
Date

On 2022/9/23 18:30, John Garry wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 11:13, Jason Yan wrote:
>>>
>>> Please explain why.
>>>
>>> I would assume that if those helpers were only used in libsas code
>>> (and not LLDDs) then they could be put in sas_internal.h and no need
>>> for export
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I did not make it clear. I mean we need to export
>> sas_find_attathed_phy() below. Not the sas address comparation helpers.
>
> That seems fine to me.
>
> About sas_find_attathed_phy() implementation,
>
> > +static inline int sas_find_attathed_phy(struct expander_device *ex_dev,
> > +                                       struct domain_device *dev)
> > +{
> > +       struct ex_phy *phy;
> > +       int phy_id;
> > +
> > +       for (phy_id = 0; phy_id < ex_dev->num_phys; phy_id++) {
> > +               phy = &ex_dev->ex_phy[phy_id];
> > +               if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)
> > +                       == SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr))
> > +                       return phy_id;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return ex_dev->num_phys;
>
> Returning ex_dev->num_phys would seem ok, but then the LLDD needs to
> check that return against ex_dev->num_phys. It seems ok, but I'm still
> not 100% comfortable with that. Maybe returning -ENODEV may be better.
>
> Or return boolean and pass phy_id as pointer to be filled in when
> returning true.
>

I've been thinking about this for a while too. Thank you for the advise.

Thanks,
Jason

> > +}
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> .

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-24 05:23    [W:0.084 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site