Hey, On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Antoine Ténart wrote: > > So, yeah, it's being used both as input and output and we also have > > the arguments which affect port_map, right? It does seem confusing. > > I do see priv->port_map as being automatically set and then restricted > if needed by the port_map input here. I don't see how that's confusing. > The only modification is we restrict the port_map parameter to the set > of available ports. The port_map argument affected priv->port_map before > this patch. 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(). > > Well, so does clk. Let's say clk is more restricted and phy can be > > one or more per port and thus needs to be dynamic. If so, shouldn't > > we at least have some correlation between phys and ports? It bothers > > me that now libahci is carrying random number of resources that it has > > no idea how to associate with the ports it manages. What if later we > > want to involve phy driver in power managing unoccupied ports? > > I see. This is a first (working) attempt to have a one node per port. I > agree that would be nice to have a correlation between ports and PHYs. > This can definitively be added when needed without changing the dt > bindings as only the internal representation changes. This would also > require to get all phys from the port nodes, which is again internal > stuff. > > Don't you think we can go by steps, and have a following up series for > this when needed (like in a power managing series for unoccupied ports)? I don't know. It isn't exactly difficult to make it per-port, is it? We already have ahci_port_priv and wouldn't the code actually be simpler that way? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
