Sergey Vlasov wrote:
What is needed to get the VT8251 support into the kernel tree?
1) Doing what you are doing: asking questions like this. :)
2) Watching Tejun Heo's reset work. He already has an AHCI soft reset
patch, and the VIA AHCI work really depends on this.
I have looked at the patch, and it basically does three things:
1) Apparently the VT8251 hardware does not like the standard reset
sequence performed by __sata_phy_reset() - the phy seems to become
ready, but the ATA_BUSY bit never goes off. So the patch authors
just duplicated ahci_phy_reset(), inserted the whole code of
__sata_phy_reset() in there, and added this part before the
ata_busy_sleep() call:
+ /*Fix the VIA busy bug by a software reset*/
+ for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+ tmp_status = ap->ops->check_status(ap);
+ if ((tmp_status & ATA_BUSY) == 0) break;
+ msleep(10);
+ }
+
+ if ((tmp_status & ATA_BUSY)) {
+ DPRINTK("Busy after CommReset, do softreset...\n");
+ /*set the PxCMD.CLO bit to clear BUSY and DRQ, to make the reset command sent out*/
+ tmp = readl(port_mmio + PORT_CMD);
+ tmp |= PORT_CMD_CLO;
+ writel(tmp, port_mmio + PORT_CMD);
+ readl(port_mmio + PORT_CMD); /* flush */
+
+ if (via_ahci_softreset(ap)) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "softreset failed\n");
+ return;
+ }
+ }
Now, if this is really a chip bug, we don't have any choice except
adding this workaround, but obviously not in this way. What do you
think about splitting __sata_phy_reset() in two parts -
__sata_phy_reset_start() (everything up to the point where
ata_busy_sleep() is called) and __sata_phy_reset_end()
(ata_busy_sleep() and the rest), so that the low-level driver could
insert its own code between these parts? Or should a hook for this
be added to ->ops instead?
Tejun's stuff broke up this sequence, so it should be much easier to
utilize his new reset code (in libata-dev.git#upstream, queued for 2.6.17).
2) via_ahci_qc_issue really just filters out the SETFEATURES_XFER
command; only VIA can tell why this is needed, and is there a better
way to do this. However, at least some duplicated code could be
removed easily:
static int via_ahci_qc_issue(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
{
if (qc && qc->tf.command == ATA_CMD_SET_FEATURES &&
qc->tf.feature == SETFEATURES_XFER) {
/* skip set xfer mode process */
ata_qc_complete(qc);
return 0;
}
return ahci_qc_issue(qc);
}
Would this be acceptable?
I wonder first if this actually solves some problems. I would prefer to
-not- do this, and see what happens.
3) What via_ahci_port_stop() does, I just don't understand - it is
basically a copy of ahci_port_stop() at that time, but with clearing
of the PORT_CMD bits removed - so nothing is stopped actually.
Again, only VIA can tell why is this needed, but this part of the
patch looks like a bug.
As your instinct seems to be, I would prefer to avoid this change if
possible.
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
