On Thursday 02 April 2015 07:58 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:31:40AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
On Saturday 28 March 2015 05:58 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:29:44AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
On Thursday 19 March 2015 06:53 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
+static struct phy *brcm_sata_phy_xlate(struct device *dev,
+ struct of_phandle_args *args)
+{
+ struct brcm_sata_phy *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ int i = args->args[0];
+
+ if (i >= MAX_PORTS || !priv->phys[i].phy) {
+ dev_err(dev, "invalid phy: %d\n", i);
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+ }
+
+ return priv->phys[i].phy;
+}
this xlate is not required at all if the controller device tree node has
phandle to the phy node (sub node) instead of the phy provider device tree
node.
That doesn't match any convention I see in existing SATA phy bindings,
nor do I see how the existing of_phy_simple_xlate() would support this,
unless I instantiate a device for each port's PHY. If I adjust the
device tree as you suggest, and use of_phy_simple_xlate() instead of
this, of_phy_get() can't find the PHY provider, because the provider is
registered to the parent, not the subnode.
The phy core should still be able to get the PHY provider.
See this in of_phy_provider_lookup
for_each_child_of_node(phy_provider->dev->of_node, child)
if (child == node)
return phy_provider;
That just searches for children of the node. It doesn't walk parent
nodes.
okay.. in your phy_create pass the np of the PHYs (sub-node pointer to phy
provider).
Can you post your device tree node here?
You mean patch 5?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/18/937
Can you elaborate on your suggestion?
Change the dt node to something like below..
+
+ sata@f045a000 {
+ <snip>
+
+ sata0: sata-port@0 {
+ reg = <0>;
+ phys = <&sata_phy0>;
+ };
+
+ sata1: sata-port@1 {
+ reg = <1>;
+ phys = <&sata_phy1>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ sata_phy: sata-phy@f0458100 {
+ compatible = "brcm,bcm7445-sata-phy", "brcm,phy-sata3";
+ reg = <0x458100 0x1e00>, <0x45804c 0x10>;
+ reg-names = "phy", "port-ctrl";
+ #address-cells = <0x1>;
+ #size-cells = <0x0>;
+
+ sata_phy0: sata-phy@0 {
+ reg = <0>;
+ #phy-cells = <0>;
+ };
+
+ sata_phy1: sata-phy@1 {
+ #phy-cells = <0>;
+ };
+ };
};
+
+static const struct of_device_id brcmstb_sata_phy_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "brcm,bcm7445-sata-phy" },
+ {},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, brcmstb_sata_phy_of_match);
+
+static int brcmstb_sata_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ struct device_node *dn = dev->of_node, *child;
+ struct brcm_sata_phy *priv;
+ struct resource *res;
+ struct phy_provider *provider;
+ int count = 0;
+
+ if (of_get_child_count(dn) == 0)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!priv)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ dev_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
+ priv->dev = dev;
+
+ res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "port-ctrl");
+ if (!res) {
+ dev_err(dev, "couldn't get port-ctrl resource\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ /*
+ * Don't request region, since it may be within a region owned by the
+ * SATA driver
It should be in the SATA driver then. Why is it here?
Did you read the discussion branching here?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/114637
I've seen the exact opposite suggestion already (move it to the PHY
driver), and I'm not sure either suggestion is correct. The same
register block has registers for both the PHY and the SATA controller.
IMHO the register space shouldn't be defined based on the programming sequence
but by where the register is actually present in the IP. From that thread it
doesn't look like it is present in the PHY IP.
If you say so. But it has plenty of PHY controls packed into those
registers, so are you just recommending handling those bits from the
SATA driver?
Yes. Let's program only the PHY IP in this driver.
...
lets not make the boot noisy. Make it dev_vdbg if it is required.
I think it's important to have at least some of the three informational
prints that you're suggesting turn into dbg. It's pretty important to
see that we're powering on one or more PHY ports, for both
power/correctness concerns (trying to power on a port that is
OTP-disabled, for instance) and debugging concerns (the suggestions you
made about the device tree yielded a dead SATA, and it was obvious,
because the "powering on" prints were missing).
All these are debugging info. Hence it's better to keep in dev_vdbg or dev_dbg.
I'd kinda like to see the previous power on/off prints above stay as
dev_info(), though the "registered" print might be superfluous, as the
registration info should show up in sysfs.
Related: I don't see any API for monitoring the PHY status from user
space. e.g., there's nothing useful in /sys/class/phy/*/.
Do you really need to monitor the PHY status? We should be careful about
exposing anything to the user space since it will become an ABI and we can
never modify it.
Not really, but the debugging info (which you want me to remove by
default, and which is unretrievable after system boot) is the next
I didn't ask you to remove it. I just asked you to keep in dev_dbg. If you are
interested in the debugging info, all you need to do is change the debug log level.
Cheers
Kishon
--
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
