On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 07:12:14AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:07:35PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > > @@ -1358,6 +1359,7 @@ static int mv_scr_write(struct ata_link *link, unsigned int sc_reg_in, u32 val) > > > > if (ofs != 0xffffffffU) { > > void __iomem *addr = mv_ap_base(link->ap) + ofs; > > + void __iomem *lp_phy_addr = mv_ap_base(link->ap) + LP_PHY_CTL; > > if (sc_reg_in == SCR_CONTROL) { > > /* > > * Workaround for 88SX60x1 FEr SATA#26: > > @@ -1374,6 +1376,14 @@ static int mv_scr_write(struct ata_link *link, unsigned int sc_reg_in, u32 val) > > */ > > if ((val & 0xf) == 1 || (readl(addr) & 0xf) == 1) > > val |= 0xf000; > > + > > + /* > > + * Setting PHY speed according to SControl speed > > + */ > > + if ((val & 0xf0) == 0x10) > > + writelfl(0x7, lp_phy_addr); > > + else > > + writelfl(0x227, lp_phy_addr); > > Do we know that this is safe for all sata_mvs? If other sata_mvs > haven't had the described issue, maybe this should be applied > selectively to the said soc? I'd actually prefer to avoid such > conditionals but we need to confirm this is okay for other > implementations. Hi Tejun I've tested on Kirkwood, and not had problems. But i agree with you. We need somebody in Marvell to say this is safe with all sata_mv variants. Lior, can you comment? Thanks Andrew -- 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