Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220728144710.1.Id612b86fd30936dfd4c456b3341547c15cecf321@changeid>
 <28005e66-ba90-8986-1b8f-b76bba46064c@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <28005e66-ba90-8986-1b8f-b76bba46064c@acm.org>
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:08:05 +1000
Message-ID: <CAONX=-d-_2bXqf0TCjdJ1u+B3cU3ZkP9WCu3QxqSZT-v3E_4BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: core: print capabilities in controller's sysfs node
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:37 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
> This code change includes all of the UFSHCD_CAP_* constants in the
> kernel ABI. Is that really what we want? I'm wondering whether it
> perhaps would be better only to export those capabilities to user space
> that user space needs to know about.
Adding the filtering would introduce an extra maintenance burden and
will likely go out
of sync. I don't see harm in exposing all capabilities, both intrinsic
to the controller and
negotiated with the device. Do you see any scenario where that would be harmful?
--Daniil