Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] ata: libahci: allow to use multiple PHYs
From: Antoine Ténart
Date: Wed Jul 09 2014 - 04:23:48 EST
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:40:10PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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
I don't get it. Which argument should I replace in
save_initial_config()? The change is we compute hpriv->port_map.
I don't see which arguments we can add or replace.
If that's more clear, the modification here is equivalent to (when using
the new bindings):
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
index 40ea583d3610..f9d3cfd5d1bd 100644
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev,
/* record values to use during operation */
hpriv->cap = cap;
hpriv->cap2 = cap2;
- hpriv->port_map = port_map;
+ hpriv->port_map &= port_map;
hpriv->start_engine = ahci_start_engine;
It just use the argument port_map on the real set of ports. If that's
still not clear, I can add a separate field. But the field will store
the exact same information as hpriv->port_map. We will have something
hpriv->port_map &= hpriv->available_port_map;
> > > 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?
I had a quick look on this, and it does not seems to be that simple. The
ahci_port_priv is stored inside the ata_port struct and not accessible
(as of now) from the ahci_host_priv one. The ahci_port_priv is
initialized at the end of ahci_platform_init_host(), far after we need
it. This requires quite a lot of changes. Or is there another way?
To be honest, we are now at v9 and it's been quite a long time since v1.
I'd really like it to be merged in 3.17. As I see it, this patch keeps
the same logic as what was in place before, only with more PHYs.
Don't take me wrong, I really think this is a good idea to have a
per-port PHY information. But this is a refactoring not clearly related
to this series as the logic is not changed. This definitively can be the
subject of a dedicated series, especially if I got it right and the
required modifications are not that obvious.
What do you think?
Antoine Ténart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/