On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:51:46PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 03:18:55PM +0800, Richard Zhu wrote:
> >> On imx53 AHCI, soft reset fails with IPMS set when PMP
> >> is enabled but SATA HDD/ODD is connected to SATA port,
> >> do soft reset again to port 0.
> >> So the 'ahci_pmp_retry_srst_ops' is required when imx53
> >> ahci is present.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Zhu <richard.zhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
> >> index 6fef1fa..f32c91e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c
> >> @@ -23,6 +23,41 @@
> >> #include <linux/ahci_platform.h>
> >> #include "ahci.h"
> >>
> >> +enum ahci_type {
> >> + AHCI, /* standard platform ahci */
> >> + IMX53_AHCI, /* ahci on i.mx53 */
> >
> > How about making all the IMX*-naming more generic because other SoC might need
> > this somewhen, too?
>
> From a practical point of view, we can start with what we know already.
> As the SATA controller on "other SoC" so far, we don't know yet if they
> show the same issue (which we have to use ahci_pmp_retry_srst_ops).
>
> So Wolfram, how about we consider a generic one once more controllers
> are being added?
If we do so later, and we then also change the platform_device_id to something
generic, we then also have to change all users, too. Is it so bad to change
IMX53_AHCI (and imx53-ahci and alike) to something like "ahci-pmp-retry-srst"
(or similar) now?
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
