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: <20220729020508.4147751-1-dlunev@chromium.org> <20220729120216.v3.2.Ibf9efc9be50783eeee55befa2270b7d38552354c@changeid>
 <YuOWV5uLVV2JYP1c@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YuOWV5uLVV2JYP1c@kroah.com>
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:29:45 +1000
Message-ID: <CAONX=-cy_abLBw1uAEYk6pxmyuQQ4qeQRftZVi7byNuYnEsA+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ufs: core: print UFSHCD capabilities in
 controller's sysfs node
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Sohaib Mohamed <sohaib.amhmd@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> >
> > +What:                /sys/bus/platform/drivers/ufshcd/*/capabilities/clock_scaling
>
> This shouldn't be linked to as a driver file, it's a device file.  So no
> need for this line.
>
> > +What:                /sys/bus/platform/devices/*.ufs/capabilities/clock_scaling
>
> Since when are all ufs devices platform devices?  Do we not have UFS
> controllers on other types of busses?

I have pretty much copped the structure of the entries across this file. Nearly
all of the entries link both device and driver paths and nearly all of
the entries
mention the platform-based path (which you correctly mentioned is not
factually correct, since we do have controllers on the pci bus). Please advise
if it is ok to keep it like this for consistency or what would be the
appropriate
way to adjust the documentation?
--Daniil