On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 09:03:25AM +0000, Stanislav Nijnikov wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bart Van Assche
> > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 6:32 PM
> > To: gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> > Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
> > jaeg...@kernel.org; Alex Lemberg <alex.lemb...@wdc.com>; Stanislav
> > Nijnikov <stanislav.nijni...@wdc.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] ufs: sysfs: device descriptor
> >
> > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 08:17 +0100, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:25:46AM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 18:15 +0200, Stanislav Nijnikov wrote:
> > > > > +enum ufs_desc_param_size {
> > > > > + UFS_PARAM_BYTE_SIZE = 1,
> > > > > + UFS_PARAM_WORD_SIZE = 2,
> > > > > + UFS_PARAM_DWORD_SIZE = 4,
> > > > > + UFS_PARAM_QWORD_SIZE = 8,
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > Please do not copy bad naming choices from the Windows kernel into
> > > > the Linux kernel. Using names like WORD / DWORD / QWORD is much less
> > > > readable than using the numeric constants 2, 4, 8. Hence my proposal
> > > > to leave out the above enum completely.
> > >
> > > Are you sure those do not come from the spec itself? It's been a
> > > while since I last read it, but for some reason I remember those types
> > > of names being in there. But I might be confusing specs here.
> >
> > Hello Greg,
> >
> > That's a good question. However, a quick search on the Internet for the
> > search phrase "Universal Flash Storage" "qword" did not yield any results
> > about UFS in the first ten search hits. And I haven't found any references
> > to
> > the DWORD / QWORD terminology in the "UNIVERSAL FLASH STORAGE HOST
> > CONTROLLER INTERFACE (UFSHCI), UNIFIED MEMORY EXTENSION, Version
> > 1.1" document either. Maybe that means that I was looking at the wrong
> > document?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bart.
> >
> >
> The UFS spec 2.1 specifies size as first letter in names of the descriptor
> parameters and attributes (e.g. bDeviceClass, wSpecVersion, dPSAMaxDataSize,
> qTotalRawDeviceCapacity, ...). But usage of the enum could be easily removed.
It matches the naming scheme of the spec, so in my opinion, it's fine
as-is. But as I'm not the author here, it's up to you what you want to
use, you have to maintain this, not me :)
thanks,
greg k-h
