Re: sata_dwc_460ex driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 27 May 2016 at 11:56, Mason <slash.tmp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 18:20, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Mason wrote:
>>
>>> I'm working on a SoC which embeds an IP block from Synopsys labeled
>>> Synopsys DesignWare Cores Serial ATA AHCI Core, aka DWC_ahsata
>>> (DWC SATA AHCI Host 6Gb/s AXI Interface).
>>>
>>> Would the sata_dwc_460ex driver support this DWC_ahsata hardware?
>>>
>>> I suppose I would also need to enable AHCI support, right?
>>>
>>> What is the difference between SATA_AHCI and SATA_AHCI_PLATFORM ?
>>>
>>> SATA_AHCI          = 971db06e09231
>>> SATA_AHCI_PLATFORM = 1c2a49f61785e
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, SATA_AHCI is for platforms with a PCI bus,
>>> while SATA_AHCI_PLATFORM is for other platforms. I probably want the
>>> latter then?
>>>
>>> On the analog side, the SATA PHY is also made by Synopsys.
>>> Do I need to enable a specific driver?
>>> I didn't see anything relevant in drivers/phy
>>>
>>> (The documentation mentions 11 registers for tweaking the controller,
>>> but maybe it's the boot-loader's job to set this up correctly?)
>>
>> The sata_dwc_460ex driver can be made to work with the tango3/4 chips.
>
> I'm talking about tango5. It's not the same controller as tango3/4.
> (They use different Synopsys DesignWare controllers.)
>
>> You need a dmaengine driver (I've written one for tango3, needs slight
>> tweaking for tango4) and some additions to the SATA driver to handle the
>> DMA glue logic (I have unpublished code for this as well).  There are a
>> bunch of fixes for the SATA driver currently in linux-next, and I was
>> planning to take another look at supporting tango3/4 once these hit
>> mainline (4.7-rc1 most likely).
>
> FWIW, it seems like tango4 is low-priority internally ATM.
>
>> A driver for the PHY is probably a good idea, even if the boot loader
>> does some configuration, since this allows it to be powered down when
>> not in use.
>
> How come there are so few phy drivers in drivers/phy if most devices
> would typically require one?

Short answer is that the generic phy framework is fairly recent (~3
years old).  A lot of phys are stuck off in other places like
drivers/usb/phy.  At least that's my take on it.


Regards,

Andy Gross
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux