Hi, On 07/09/2014 03:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Antoine Ténart wrote: >>> It is confusing. If you wanna pass around available ports in hpriv, >>> please add a separate field and replace the arguments to >>> save_initial_config(). >> >> 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. > > The @force_port_map and @mask_port_map of ahci_save_initial_config(). > We end up with three params from two places modifying port_map and one > of those is in/out parameter, so ummm, no. If you wanna add port > masking to @hpriv, please do it by moving @force_port_map and > @mask_port_map into @hpriv instead. > > Sure, the proposed change is small but the end result is messy. > >> 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? > > Yeah, it'd probably need separating out port resource handling, so > that the order is get_resources, host_alloc, get_port_resources and > then init and activate. Hans, what do you think? The order (and function names) you're suggesting here sound good to me. Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
