Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] ata: libahci: allow to use multiple PHYs

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Tue Jul 08 2014 - 17:40:46 EST


On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Antoine Ténart wrote:
> > So, yeah, it's being used both as input and output and we also have
> > the arguments which affect port_map, right? It does seem confusing.
> I do see priv->port_map as being automatically set and then restricted
> if needed by the port_map input here. I don't see how that's confusing.
> The only modification is we restrict the port_map parameter to the set
> of available ports. The port_map argument affected priv->port_map before
> this patch.

It is confusing. If you wanna pass around available ports in hpriv,
please add a separate field and replace the arguments to

> > Well, so does clk. Let's say clk is more restricted and phy can be
> > one or more per port and thus needs to be dynamic. If so, shouldn't
> > we at least have some correlation between phys and ports? It bothers
> > me that now libahci is carrying random number of resources that it has
> > no idea how to associate with the ports it manages. What if later we
> > want to involve phy driver in power managing unoccupied ports?
> I see. This is a first (working) attempt to have a one node per port. I
> agree that would be nice to have a correlation between ports and PHYs.
> This can definitively be added when needed without changing the dt
> bindings as only the internal representation changes. This would also
> require to get all phys from the port nodes, which is again internal
> stuff.
> Don't you think we can go by steps, and have a following up series for
> this when needed (like in a power managing series for unoccupied ports)?

I don't know. It isn't exactly difficult to make it per-port, is it?
We already have ahci_port_priv and wouldn't the code actually be
simpler that way?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at