Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:30:49 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/7] scsi: pm8001: use dev_and_phy_addr_same() instead of open coded | From | John Garry <> |
| |
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.
> +}
Thanks, John
| |