Hi, John
On 2023/12/1 17:22, John Garry wrote:
On 30/11/2023 03:53, yangxingui wrote:
For phy19, when the phy is attached and added to the parent wide
port, the path is:
sas_rediscover()
->sas_discover_new()
->sas_ex_discover_devices()
->sas_ex_discover_dev()
-> sas_add_parent_port().
ok, so then the change to set ex_phy->port = ex->parent_port looks
ok. Maybe we can put this in a helper with the sas_port_add_phy()
call, as it is duplicated in sas_ex_join_wide_port()
Do we also need to set ex_phy->phy_state (like sas_ex_join_wide_port())?
Well, okay, as follows?
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
@@ -856,9 +856,7 @@ static bool sas_ex_join_wide_port(struct
domain_device *parent, int phy_id)
if (!memcmp(phy->attached_sas_addr,
ephy->attached_sas_addr,
SAS_ADDR_SIZE) && ephy->port) {
- sas_port_add_phy(ephy->port, phy->phy);
- phy->port = ephy->port;
- phy->phy_state = PHY_DEVICE_DISCOVERED;
+ sas_port_add_ex_phy(ephy->port, phy);
return true;
this looks ok. How about adding this helper and using it in a separate
change?
Okay, then I will update the version.
}
}
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_internal.h
b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_internal.h
index e860d5b19880..39ffa60a9a01 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_internal.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_internal.h
@@ -189,6 +189,13 @@ static inline void sas_phy_set_target(struct
asd_sas_phy *p, struct domain_devic
}
}
+static inline void sas_port_add_ex_phy(struct sas_port *port, struct
ex_phy *ex_phy)
+{
+ sas_port_add_phy(port, ex_phy->phy);
+ ex_phy->port = port;
+ ex_phy->phy_state = PHY_DEVICE_DISCOVERED;
+}
I'd prefer sas_expander.c, but sas_add_parent_port() is here... having
said that, sas_add_parent_port() is only used in sas_expander.c
Okay, then I will update the version and move it to sas_expander.c .
+
static inline void sas_add_parent_port(struct domain_device *dev,
int phy_id)
{
struct expander_device *ex = &dev->ex_dev;
@@ -201,8 +208,7 @@ static inline void sas_add_parent_port(struct
domain_device *dev, int phy_id)
BUG_ON(sas_port_add(ex->parent_port));
sas_port_mark_backlink(ex->parent_port);
}
- sas_port_add_phy(ex->parent_port, ex_phy->phy);
+ sas_port_add_ex_phy(ex->parent_port, ex_phy);
}
And the path called when it is removed from parent wide port is:
sas_rediscover()
->sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr() // The sas address of phy19
becomes 0. Since ex_phy->port is NULL, phy19 is not removed from the
parent wide port's phy_list.
For phy0, it is connected to a new sata device.
sas_rediscover()
->sas_discover_new()->sas_ex_phy_discover()
->sas_ex_phy_discover_helper()
->sas_set_ex_phy() // The device
type is stp. Since the linkrate is 5 and less than 1.5G, sas_address
is set to 0.
Then when we get the proper linkrate later, will we then rediscover
and set the proper SAS address? I am just wondering if this change is
really required?
Yes, but in fact it has not reached that stage yet. After setting the
address to 0, it will continue to create a new port and try to add
other phys with the same address as it to this new port.
creating a port for SAS address == 0 and adding phys seems incorrect,
right?
Yes. There are three possible ways to solve the problem of creating a
port with a zero address:
1. Use the sas address obtained by querying the expander instead of the
zero address.
2. Forbid the phy with an address of 0 to create a port.
3. When the rate is less than 1.5G, do not let it enter
sas_ex_discover_end_dev().
Because when the device type is not empty, its SAS address is legal, and
we are currently using the first one.
BTW, Even with the change to set ex_phy->port = ex->parent_port, are
we still joining the host-attached expander phy (19) to a port with
SAS address == 0?
Yes, in order to avoid this situation, in the current patch, we will
not force the SAS address to be set to 0 when the device type is not
NULL, but will still use the address obtained after requesting the
expander.
ok, let me check that again later today.
OK.
Thanks
Xingui
