Hi:
Maybe we have to come back to take wolfram's suggestion.
Remove the mx53 specification in the ahci_type, and replace it by
the generic one AHCI_PMP_RTY_SRST
Then the other ahci controller that needs the same PMP retry soft
reset SW work-around can reuse the
ata_port_info.
Hi Eric:
How about to use the generic ahci_type AHCI_PMP_RTY_SRST to replace
the IMX53_AHCI firstly?
The specified ahci_type can be added if the ahci controller needs some
different configurations refer to
the definitions in the AHCI_PMP_RTY_SRST's ata_port_info.
In this way, we can re-use the codes as much as possible.
Best Regards
Richard Zhu
On 30 August 2011 15:07, Richard Zhu <richard.zhu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi:
> One more concern, the .../drivers/ata/ahci.h file should be moved to
> .../include/linux/ folder.
> Because that the kinds of macros used in the ata_port_info and the
> ahci_pmp_retry_srst_ops are
> all defined in the .../drivers/ata/ahci.h file.
> Otherwise, the ata_port_info can't be defined in the board related
> platform data.
>
> How we can handle this case?
>
> Best Regard
> Richard Zhu
>
> On 30 August 2011 14:21, Richard Zhu <richard.zhu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi:
>> Pass port info from the platform data is a good idea.
>> About the codes duplication in the board level, I think that we can
>> re-use the default port info on most boards, when the ata_port_info
>> is null in the platform data struct.
>> We can leave the ahci_platform.c without any modifications in this way.
>>
>> How do you guys think about?
>>
>> Best Regard
>> Richard Zhu
>>
>>
>> On 29 August 2011 20:25, Eric Miao <eric.miao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> ---
>>>> [...]
>>>>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>> struct ahci_platform_data *pdata = dev->platform_data;
>>>>> - struct ata_port_info pi = {
>>>>> - .flags = AHCI_FLAG_COMMON,
>>>>> - .pio_mask = ATA_PIO4,
>>>>> - .udma_mask = ATA_UDMA6,
>>>>> - .port_ops = &ahci_ops,
>>>>> - };
>>>>> + struct platform_device_id *id_entry = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
>>>>> + struct ata_port_info pi = ahci_port_info[id_entry->driver_data];
>>>>
>>>> Why not pass port info via platform_data? It seems to be platform
>>>> specific nowadays, so leave the default as is, but let the platforms
>>>> pass their own port info through platform_data.
>>>
>>> That's also a very clean way. However I have the concern that it might
>>> end up with many duplicate entries.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anton Vorontsov
>>>> Email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>>> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
