On 11/22/24 12:05 AM, Josua Mayer wrote:
> So far ahci_platform relied on number of child nodes in firmware to
> allocate arrays and expected port numbers to start from 0 without holes.
> This number of ports is then set in private structure for use when
> configuring phys and regulators.
>
> Some platforms may not use every port of an ahci controller.
> E.g. SolidRUN CN9130 Clearfog uses only port 1 but not port 0, leading
> to the following errors during boot:
> [ 1.719476] ahci f2540000.sata: invalid port number 1
> [ 1.724562] ahci f2540000.sata: No port enabled
>
> Remove from ahci_host_priv the property nports which only makes sense
> when enabled ports are consecutive. It is replaced with AHCI_MAX_PORTS
> and checks for hpriv->mask_port_map, which indicates each port that is
> enabled.
>
> Update ahci_host_priv properties target_pwrs and phys from dynamically
> allocated arrays to statically allocated to size AHCI_MAX_PORTS.
>
> Update ahci_platform_get_resources to ignore holes in the port numbers
> and enable ports defined in firmware by their reg property only.
>
> When firmware does not define children it is assumed that there is
> exactly one port, using index 0.
>
> I marked this RFC because it was only tested with Linux v6.1, Marvell
> fork, CN9130 Clearfog Pro which has only port number 1 in device-tree.
> Further I am not completely sure if it has severe side-effects on
> other platforms.
> I plan to submit it again after testing on v6.13-rc1, but do welcome
> feedback in the meantime, particularly whether this idea of supporting
> non-consecutive ports is acceptable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> @@ -539,41 +544,7 @@ struct ahci_host_priv *ahci_platform_get_resources(struct platform_device *pdev,
> hpriv->f_rsts = flags & AHCI_PLATFORM_RST_TRIGGER;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * Too many sub-nodes most likely means having something wrong with
> - * the firmware.
> - */
> child_nodes = of_get_child_count(dev->of_node);
> - if (child_nodes > AHCI_MAX_PORTS) {
> - rc = -EINVAL;
> - goto err_out;
> - }
Why remove this check ? Your platform may not need ti, but it is still valid
for others.
> -
> - /*
> - * If no sub-node was found, we still need to set nports to
> - * one in order to be able to use the
> - * ahci_platform_[en|dis]able_[phys|regulators] functions.
> - */
> - if (child_nodes)
> - hpriv->nports = child_nodes;
> - else
> - hpriv->nports = 1;
Same here.
> -
> - hpriv->phys = devm_kcalloc(dev, hpriv->nports, sizeof(*hpriv->phys), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!hpriv->phys) {
> - rc = -ENOMEM;
> - goto err_out;
> - }
> - /*
> - * We cannot use devm_ here, since ahci_platform_put_resources() uses
> - * target_pwrs after devm_ have freed memory
> - */
> - hpriv->target_pwrs = kcalloc(hpriv->nports, sizeof(*hpriv->target_pwrs), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!hpriv->target_pwrs) {
> - rc = -ENOMEM;
> - goto err_out;
> - }
And for platforms that actually have a valid nports with no ID holes, the above
is OK and uses less memory...
Why not simply adding code that checks the ID of the child nodes ? If there are
no ID holes, then nothing need to change. If there are holes, then
hpriv->nports can be set to the highest ID + 1 and you can set
hpriv->mask_port_map as you go. With just that, you should get everything
working with far less changes than you have here.
> if (child_nodes) {
> for_each_child_of_node_scoped(dev->of_node, child) {
> u32 port;
> @@ -587,7 +558,7 @@ struct ahci_host_priv *ahci_platform_get_resources(struct platform_device *pdev,
> goto err_out;
> }
>
> - if (port >= hpriv->nports) {
> + if (port >= AHCI_MAX_PORTS) {
> dev_warn(dev, "invalid port number %d\n", port);
> continue;
> }
> @@ -625,6 +596,8 @@ struct ahci_host_priv *ahci_platform_get_resources(struct platform_device *pdev,
> * If no sub-node was found, keep this for device tree
> * compatibility
> */
> + hpriv->mask_port_map |= BIT(0);
> +
> rc = ahci_platform_get_phy(hpriv, 0, dev, dev->of_node);
> if (rc)
> goto err_out;
>
> ---
> base-commit: adc218676eef25575469234709c2d87185ca223a
> change-id: 20241121-ahci-nonconsecutive-ports-a8911b3255a7
>
> Best regards,
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
