Hi,
On 19-03-15 20:11, Brian Norris wrote:
Replying to myself, because I may or may not like having conversations
with myself :)
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:36:40AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 06:02:16PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 19-03-15 16:53, Brian Norris wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 19-03-15 02:23, Brian Norris wrote:
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Light dependency on:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-March/331921.html
for the surrounding text.
arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445.dtsi | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445.dtsi
index 9eaeac8dce1b..7a7c4d8c2afe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445.dtsi
@@ -108,6 +108,42 @@
brcm,int-map-mask = <0x25c>, <0x7000000>;
brcm,int-fwd-mask = <0x70000>;
};
+
+ sata@f045a000 {
+ compatible = "brcm,bcm7445-ahci", "brcm,sata3-ahci";
+ reg-names = "ahci", "top-ctrl";
+ reg = <0x45a000 0xa9c>, <0x458040 0x24>;
Why not simply drop the second register range here, and the minimal top-ctrl
poking you need in the phy driver's phy_init function ?
I agree it's a little ugly, but your recommended solution will not work.
The 'top-ctrl' register range includes several SATA functionalities,
some of which are required for the PHY and some of which are definitely
required for the SATA driver.
I see, but the phy driver is required for the SATA driver anyways,
and since the BUS_CTRL setting seems to be static it might just as
well be set by the phy driver. The phy driver also poking some
common sata glue bits like this busctrl register is not unheard of,
esp. when these glue bits are in the phy register range.
I realized I *do* still have some reservations about moving the
SATA_TOP_CTRL register range under the PHY DT binding; it's because all
arguments for it seem to rest on descriptions of how the software would
*like* to handle it. It's not at all about describing the hardware
correctly.
I had the same doubts myself when making the suggestion actually :)
If the busctrl register purely influences the ahci functional block and
not the phy functional block, then you are right.
However if you look at the registermap, then doing as I suggest
feels more natural as you get 2 distinct register blocks, one for ahci
one for the phy, but if the one register in the phy range actually is a
ahci register, then it would probably be more accurate to describe
things that way ...
I still see SATA_TOP_CTRL as a register resource that belongs to the
SATA controller, not to the PHY. It just happens that it has a few
registers in it that are also for use in the PHY.
So, to best describe the *hardware*, it seems we might split top-ctrl
into 3 portions, where the middle gets assigned to a phy description,
and the first and last belong to the SATA controller description.
But to most easily describe how *software* would best handle them, we
might stick all the custom stuff (i.e., all of top-ctrl + phy) into the
PHY description.
I still think that, practically speaking, the latter should work just
fine, and it's only a theoretical concern that suggests the former.
Thoughts?
I do not like your original proposal with the overlapping / conflicting
resources. I'm fine with either alternative you suggest above. So unless
someone else weighs in you get to chose which one you like best.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
