Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/7] scsi: pm8001: use dev_and_phy_addr_same() instead of open coded | From | Jason Yan <> | Date | Sat, 24 Sep 2022 11:22:32 +0800 |
| |
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 > > .
| |