On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 06:19:10PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:27:11AM +0300, Andrey Melnikov wrote:
> > > On 2/7/24 12:58 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ASM1064 SATA host controller always reports wrongly,
> > > > that it has 24 ports. But in reality, it only has four ports.
> > > >
> > > > before:
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: SSS flag set, parallel bus scan disabled
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xffff0f impl SATA mode
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led only pio sxs deso sadm sds apst
> > > >
> > > > after:
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: ASM1064 has only four ports
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: forcing port_map 0xffff0f -> 0xf
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: SSS flag set, parallel bus scan disabled
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xf impl SATA mode
> > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led only pio sxs deso sadm sds apst
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Jr. Melnikov <temnota.am@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
> > > > index da2e74fce2d9..ec30d8330d16 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c
> > > > @@ -671,9 +671,14 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(mobile_lpm_policy, "Default LPM policy for mobile chipsets");
> > > > static void ahci_pci_save_initial_config(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > > > struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASMEDIA && pdev->device == 0x1166) {
> > > > - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "ASM1166 has only six ports\n");
> > > > - hpriv->saved_port_map = 0x3f;
> > > > + if (pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASMEDIA) {
> > > > + if (pdev->device == 0x1166) {
> > >
> > > Maybe *switch* instead?
> >
> > Ok.
>
> Hello Andrey,
>
> do you intend to send out a v2 that uses a switch instead?
>
> And perhaps take Damien's patch as patch 1/2
> (with Suggested-by: Damien ... of course),
> so that the before/after print in your commit message shows
> the override value.
On second thought, just go ahead and respin your patch using a switch,
as I don't think Damien's patch is fully correct.
He suggested to use hpriv->saved_port_map.
However, that will show the wrong result for platforms using
hpriv->mask_port_map.
As when hpriv->mask_port_map is used, saved_port_map is not set:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.8-rc4/drivers/ata/libahci.c#L536-L548
However, the local variable "port_map" is updated for both
saved_port_map and mask_port_map cases.
And then at the end:
hpriv->port_map = port_map;
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.8-rc4/drivers/ata/libahci.c#L597
So I think we should print hpriv->port_map,
and not hpriv->saved_port_map.
However.. hpriv->port_map is already printed:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.8-rc4/drivers/ata/libahci.c#L2617
in the "0x%x impl" print.
So
> before:
> ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xffff0f impl SATA mode
> after:
> ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xf impl SATA mode
Actually prints the number of *implemented* ports.
I have to admit that this is a bit confusing.
Personally I would have preferred if we simply printed
"%u ports", hpriv->port_map,
and simply dropped the "0x%x impl" part of the print,
but I'm a bit worried that someone parses this print from user space,
but I guess we must be allowed to improve prints if they are confusing.
Damien, what do you think?
Kind regards,
Niklas
