Hi Charles,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Charles Chiou <ch1102chiou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
>
> On 06/10/2016 08:10 AM, Julian Calaby wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Charles Chiou <ch1102chiou@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Charles <charles.chiou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Pegasus series is a RAID support product by using Thunderbolt technology.
>>>
>>> The newest product, Pegasus 3 is support Thunderbolt 3 technology with
>>> another chip.
>>>
>>> 1.Change driver version.
>>>
>>> 2.Add Pegasus 3 VID, DID and define it's device address.
>>>
>>> 3.Pegasus 3 use msi interrupt, so stex_request_irq P3 type enable msi.
>>>
>>> 4.For hibernation, use msi_lock in stex_ss_handshake to prevent msi
>>> register write again when handshaking.
>>>
>>> 5.Pegasus 3 don't need read() as flush.
>>>
>>> 6.In stex_ss_intr & stex_abort, P3 only clear interrupt register when
>>> getting vendor defined interrupt.
>>>
>>> 7.Add reboot notifier and register it in stex_probe for all supported
>>> device.
>>>
>>> 8.For all supported device in restart flow, we get a callback from
>>> notifier and set S6flag for stex_shutdown & stex_hba_stop to send restart
>>> command to FW.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Charles <charles.chiou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul <paul.lyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/stex.c | 282
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 214 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/stex.c b/drivers/scsi/stex.c
>>> index 5b23175..9de2de2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/stex.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/stex.c
>>> @@ -87,7 +95,7 @@ enum {
>>> MU_STATE_STOP = 5,
>>> MU_STATE_NOCONNECT = 6,
>>>
>>> - MU_MAX_DELAY = 120,
>>> + MU_MAX_DELAY = 50,
>>
>>
>> This won't cause problems for older adapters, right?
>
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>>> MU_HANDSHAKE_SIGNATURE = 0x55aaaa55,
>>> MU_HANDSHAKE_SIGNATURE_HALF = 0x5a5a0000,
>>> MU_HARD_RESET_WAIT = 30000,
>>> @@ -540,11 +556,15 @@ stex_ss_send_cmd(struct st_hba *hba, struct req_msg
>>> *req, u16 tag)
>>>
>>> ++hba->req_head;
>>> hba->req_head %= hba->rq_count+1;
>>> -
>>> - writel((addr >> 16) >> 16, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> - readl(hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ_HI); /* flush */
>>> - writel(addr, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> - readl(hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ); /* flush */
>>> + if (hba->cardtype == st_P3) {
>>> + writel((addr >> 16) >> 16, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> + writel(addr, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> + } else {
>>> + writel((addr >> 16) >> 16, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> + readl(hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ_HI); /* flush */
>>> + writel(addr, hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> + readl(hba->mmio_base + YH2I_REQ); /* flush */
>>> + }
>>
>>
>> The first writel() lines in each branch of the if statement are
>> identical, so they could be outside of it.
>
>
> I'll revise it in next patch.
On second thought, don't worry about doing this, keep the two
(slightly) different sets of code separate.
>>
>> Would it make sense to add a helper that does the readl() flush only
>> for non-st_P3? This could be a function pointer in the hba structure
>> which shouldn't slow stuff down.
>>
>
> Would you means to register another function pointer in struct "struct
> st_card_info" then point to hba strucrure for non-st_P3?
>
> struct st_card_info {
> struct req_msg * (*alloc_rq) (struct st_hba *);
> int (*map_sg)(struct st_hba *, struct req_msg *, struct st_ccb *);
> void (*send) (struct st_hba *, struct req_msg *, u16);
> unsigned int max_id;
> unsigned int max_lun;
> unsigned int max_channel;
> u16 rq_count;
> u16 rq_size;
> u16 sts_count;
> };
Again, on second thought, don't worry about it.
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void return_abnormal_state(struct st_hba *hba, int status)
>>> @@ -1111,30 +1160,63 @@ static int stex_ss_handshake(struct st_hba *hba)
>>> scratch_size = (hba->sts_count+1)*sizeof(u32);
>>> h->scratch_size = cpu_to_le32(scratch_size);
>>>
>>> - data = readl(base + YINT_EN);
>>> - data &= ~4;
>>> - writel(data, base + YINT_EN);
>>> - writel((hba->dma_handle >> 16) >> 16, base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> - readl(base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> - writel(hba->dma_handle, base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> - readl(base + YH2I_REQ); /* flush */
>>> + if (hba->cardtype == st_yel) {
>>
>>
>> Same question again.
>
>
> I'll revise it in next patch.
>
>>
>>> + data = readl(base + YINT_EN);
>>> + data &= ~4;
>>> + writel(data, base + YINT_EN);
>>> + writel((hba->dma_handle >> 16) >> 16, base +
>>> YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> + readl(base + YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> + writel(hba->dma_handle, base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> + readl(base + YH2I_REQ); /* flush */
>>> + } else if (hba->cardtype == st_P3) {
>>> + data = readl(base + YINT_EN);
>>> + data &= ~(1 << 0);
>>> + data &= ~(1 << 2);
>>> + writel(data, base + YINT_EN);
>>> + if (hba->msi_lock == 0) {
>>> + /* P3 MSI Register cannot access twice */
>>> + writel((1 << 6), base + YH2I_INT);
>>> + hba->msi_lock = 1;
>>> + }
>>> + writel((hba->dma_handle >> 16) >> 16, base +
>>> YH2I_REQ_HI);
>>> + writel(hba->dma_handle, base + YH2I_REQ);
>>> + }
>>
>>
>> The two writel()s at the end of each branch of the if statement are
>> identical except for the readl() calls to flush the data in the non-P3
>> case. This would be simplified by adding a helper as discussed above.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't know what you means "adding a helper", would you please tell
> me more details?
Don't worry about it. I was referring to the additional function pointer above.
>>> - scratch = hba->scratch;
>>> before = jiffies;
>>> - while (!(le32_to_cpu(*scratch) & SS_STS_HANDSHAKE)) {
>>> - if (time_after(jiffies, before + MU_MAX_DELAY * HZ)) {
>>> - printk(KERN_ERR DRV_NAME
>>> - "(%s): no signature after handshake
>>> frame\n",
>>> - pci_name(hba->pdev));
>>> - ret = -1;
>>> - break;
>>> +
>>> + if (hba->cardtype == st_yel) {
>>
>>
>> Again, is this only called for st_yel and st_P3?
>>
>
> This function only for st_yel & st_P3.
>
>
>>> + scratch = hba->scratch;
>>> +
>>> + while (!(le32_to_cpu(*scratch) & SS_STS_HANDSHAKE)) {
>>> + if (time_after(jiffies, before + MU_MAX_DELAY *
>>> HZ)) {
>>> + printk(KERN_ERR DRV_NAME
>>> + "(%s): no signature after
>>> handshake frame\n",
>>> + pci_name(hba->pdev));
>>> + ret = -1;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + rmb();
>>> + msleep(1);
>>> }
>>> - rmb();
>>> - msleep(1);
>>> + memset(scratch, 0, scratch_size);
>>> + } else if (hba->cardtype == st_P3) {
>>> + while ((readl(base + MAILBOX_BASE + MAILBOX_HNDSHK_STS)
>>> + & SS_STS_HANDSHAKE) == 0) {
>>> + if (time_after(jiffies, before + MU_MAX_DELAY *
>>> HZ)) {
>>> + printk(KERN_ERR DRV_NAME
>>> + "(%s): no signature after
>>> handshake frame\n",
>>> + pci_name(hba->pdev));
>>> + ret = -1;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + rmb();
>>> + msleep(1);
>>> + }
>>> + memset(hba->scratch, 0, scratch_size);
>>
>>
>> The memsets at the end of each branch of the if statement are identical.
>>
>
> I'll revise it in next patch.
>
>>> }
>>>
>>> - memset(scratch, 0, scratch_size);
>>> msg_h->flag = 0;
>>> +
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -1736,28 +1870,29 @@ static void stex_hba_stop(struct st_hba *hba, int
>>> st_sleep_mic)
>>>
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>>
>>> - if (hba->cardtype == st_yel && hba->supports_pm == 1)
>>> - {
>>> - if(st_sleep_mic == ST_NOTHANDLED)
>>> - {
>>> + if ((hba->cardtype == st_yel && hba->supports_pm == 1)
>>> + || (hba->cardtype == st_P3 && hba->supports_pm == 1)) {
>>
>>
>> if ((hba->cardtype == st_yel || hba->cardtype == st_P3) &&
>> hba->supports_pm == 1) {
>>
>> is simpler.
>>
>
> I'll revise it in next patch.
>
>
>>> + if (st_sleep_mic == ST_NOTHANDLED) {
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock,
>>> flags);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> req = hba->alloc_rq(hba);
>>> - if (hba->cardtype == st_yel) {
>>> + if (hba->cardtype == st_yel || hba->cardtype == st_P3) {
>>> msg_h = (struct st_msg_header *)req - 1;
>>> memset(msg_h, 0, hba->rq_size);
>>> } else
>>> memset(req, 0, hba->rq_size);
>>>
>>> - if ((hba->cardtype == st_yosemite || hba->cardtype == st_yel)
>>> + if ((hba->cardtype == st_yosemite || hba->cardtype == st_yel
>>> + || hba->cardtype == st_P3)
>>> && st_sleep_mic == ST_IGNORED) {
>>> req->cdb[0] = MGT_CMD;
>>> req->cdb[1] = MGT_CMD_SIGNATURE;
>>> req->cdb[2] = CTLR_CONFIG_CMD;
>>> req->cdb[3] = CTLR_SHUTDOWN;
>>> - } else if (hba->cardtype == st_yel && st_sleep_mic != ST_IGNORED)
>>> {
>>> + } else if ((hba->cardtype == st_yel || hba->cardtype == st_P3)
>>> + && st_sleep_mic != ST_IGNORED) {
>>
>>
>> Er, this will never get run.
>>
>> We have:
>>
>> if (hba->cardtype == st_yosemite || hba->cardtype == st_yel ||
>> hba->cardtype == st_P3) {
>> // stuff
>> } else if ((hba->cardtype == st_yel || hba->cardtype == st_P3) &&
>> st_sleep_mic != ST_IGNORED) {
>> // stuff
>> }
>>
>> Should the two branches of the if statement be reversed or should the
>> first one be written like:
>>
>> if (hba->cardtype == st_yosemite || ((hba->cardtype == st_yel ||
>> hba->cardtype == st_P3) && st_sleep_mic == ST_IGNORED)) {
>>
>
> The first statement is:
>
> if ((hba->cardtype == st_yosemite || hba->cardtype == st_yel ||
> hba->cardtype == st_P3) && st_sleep_mic == ST_IGNORED) {
>
> So I think the if statement didn't need to revise.
You're right, I can't read.
>>> req->cdb[0] = MGT_CMD;
>>> req->cdb[1] = MGT_CMD_SIGNATURE;
>>> req->cdb[2] = CTLR_CONFIG_CMD;
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
