From: "Antoine Ténart" <antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Antoine Ténart" <antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com>,
sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com, kishon@ti.com,
alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com,
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, zmxu@marvell.com,
jszhang@marvell.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] ata: libahci: allow to use multiple PHYs
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:23:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140709082331.GA4510@kwain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140708214010.GI4979@htj.dyndns.org>
Hi Tejun,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:40:10PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Antoine Ténart wrote:
> > > So, yeah, it's being used both as input and output and we also have
> > > the arguments which affect port_map, right? It does seem confusing.
> >
> > I do see priv->port_map as being automatically set and then restricted
> > if needed by the port_map input here. I don't see how that's confusing.
> > The only modification is we restrict the port_map parameter to the set
> > of available ports. The port_map argument affected priv->port_map before
> > this patch.
>
> It is confusing. If you wanna pass around available ports in hpriv,
> please add a separate field and replace the arguments to
> save_initial_config().
I don't get it. Which argument should I replace in
save_initial_config()? The change is we compute hpriv->port_map.
I don't see which arguments we can add or replace.
If that's more clear, the modification here is equivalent to (when using
the new bindings):
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
index 40ea583d3610..f9d3cfd5d1bd 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev,
/* record values to use during operation */
hpriv->cap = cap;
hpriv->cap2 = cap2;
- hpriv->port_map = port_map;
+ hpriv->port_map &= port_map;
if (!hpriv->start_engine)
hpriv->start_engine = ahci_start_engine;
It just use the argument port_map on the real set of ports. If that's
still not clear, I can add a separate field. But the field will store
the exact same information as hpriv->port_map. We will have something
like:
if (hpriv->available_port_map)
hpriv->port_map &= hpriv->available_port_map;
> > > Well, so does clk. Let's say clk is more restricted and phy can be
> > > one or more per port and thus needs to be dynamic. If so, shouldn't
> > > we at least have some correlation between phys and ports? It bothers
> > > me that now libahci is carrying random number of resources that it has
> > > no idea how to associate with the ports it manages. What if later we
> > > want to involve phy driver in power managing unoccupied ports?
> >
> > I see. This is a first (working) attempt to have a one node per port. I
> > agree that would be nice to have a correlation between ports and PHYs.
> > This can definitively be added when needed without changing the dt
> > bindings as only the internal representation changes. This would also
> > require to get all phys from the port nodes, which is again internal
> > stuff.
> >
> > Don't you think we can go by steps, and have a following up series for
> > this when needed (like in a power managing series for unoccupied ports)?
>
> I don't know. It isn't exactly difficult to make it per-port, is it?
> We already have ahci_port_priv and wouldn't the code actually be
> simpler that way?
I had a quick look on this, and it does not seems to be that simple. The
ahci_port_priv is stored inside the ata_port struct and not accessible
(as of now) from the ahci_host_priv one. The ahci_port_priv is
initialized at the end of ahci_platform_init_host(), far after we need
it. This requires quite a lot of changes. Or is there another way?
To be honest, we are now at v9 and it's been quite a long time since v1.
I'd really like it to be merged in 3.17. As I see it, this patch keeps
the same logic as what was in place before, only with more PHYs.
Don't take me wrong, I really think this is a good idea to have a
per-port PHY information. But this is a refactoring not clearly related
to this series as the logic is not changed. This definitively can be the
subject of a dedicated series, especially if I got it right and the
required modifications are not that obvious.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com (Antoine Ténart)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v9 3/7] ata: libahci: allow to use multiple PHYs
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:23:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140709082331.GA4510@kwain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140708214010.GI4979@htj.dyndns.org>
Hi Tejun,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:40:10PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Antoine T?nart wrote:
> > > So, yeah, it's being used both as input and output and we also have
> > > the arguments which affect port_map, right? It does seem confusing.
> >
> > I do see priv->port_map as being automatically set and then restricted
> > if needed by the port_map input here. I don't see how that's confusing.
> > The only modification is we restrict the port_map parameter to the set
> > of available ports. The port_map argument affected priv->port_map before
> > this patch.
>
> It is confusing. If you wanna pass around available ports in hpriv,
> please add a separate field and replace the arguments to
> save_initial_config().
I don't get it. Which argument should I replace in
save_initial_config()? The change is we compute hpriv->port_map.
I don't see which arguments we can add or replace.
If that's more clear, the modification here is equivalent to (when using
the new bindings):
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
index 40ea583d3610..f9d3cfd5d1bd 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev,
/* record values to use during operation */
hpriv->cap = cap;
hpriv->cap2 = cap2;
- hpriv->port_map = port_map;
+ hpriv->port_map &= port_map;
if (!hpriv->start_engine)
hpriv->start_engine = ahci_start_engine;
It just use the argument port_map on the real set of ports. If that's
still not clear, I can add a separate field. But the field will store
the exact same information as hpriv->port_map. We will have something
like:
if (hpriv->available_port_map)
hpriv->port_map &= hpriv->available_port_map;
> > > Well, so does clk. Let's say clk is more restricted and phy can be
> > > one or more per port and thus needs to be dynamic. If so, shouldn't
> > > we at least have some correlation between phys and ports? It bothers
> > > me that now libahci is carrying random number of resources that it has
> > > no idea how to associate with the ports it manages. What if later we
> > > want to involve phy driver in power managing unoccupied ports?
> >
> > I see. This is a first (working) attempt to have a one node per port. I
> > agree that would be nice to have a correlation between ports and PHYs.
> > This can definitively be added when needed without changing the dt
> > bindings as only the internal representation changes. This would also
> > require to get all phys from the port nodes, which is again internal
> > stuff.
> >
> > Don't you think we can go by steps, and have a following up series for
> > this when needed (like in a power managing series for unoccupied ports)?
>
> I don't know. It isn't exactly difficult to make it per-port, is it?
> We already have ahci_port_priv and wouldn't the code actually be
> simpler that way?
I had a quick look on this, and it does not seems to be that simple. The
ahci_port_priv is stored inside the ata_port struct and not accessible
(as of now) from the ahci_host_priv one. The ahci_port_priv is
initialized at the end of ahci_platform_init_host(), far after we need
it. This requires quite a lot of changes. Or is there another way?
To be honest, we are now at v9 and it's been quite a long time since v1.
I'd really like it to be merged in 3.17. As I see it, this patch keeps
the same logic as what was in place before, only with more PHYs.
Don't take me wrong, I really think this is a good idea to have a
per-port PHY information. But this is a refactoring not clearly related
to this series as the logic is not changed. This definitively can be the
subject of a dedicated series, especially if I got it right and the
required modifications are not that obvious.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Antoine
--
Antoine T?nart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-09 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-07 10:16 [PATCH v9 0/7] ARM: berlin: add AHCI support Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 1/7] phy: add a driver for the Berlin SATA PHY Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
[not found] ` <1404728173-20263-2-git-send-email-antoine.tenart-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2014-07-08 12:29 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-08 12:29 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-08 12:29 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-08 12:36 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 12:36 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 13:00 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-07-08 13:00 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-07-08 13:00 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-07-08 13:13 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-08 13:13 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-08 13:13 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 2/7] Documentation: bindings: add " Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 3/7] ata: libahci: allow to use multiple PHYs Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 13:40 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 13:40 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20140708134000.GC4979-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2014-07-08 17:03 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 17:03 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 17:03 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 17:18 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 17:18 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 17:18 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 17:49 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 17:49 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 21:40 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 21:40 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-09 8:23 ` Antoine Ténart [this message]
2014-07-09 8:23 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-09 13:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-09 13:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-09 14:02 ` Hans de Goede
2014-07-09 14:02 ` Hans de Goede
2014-07-09 15:24 ` Alexandre Belloni
2014-07-09 15:24 ` Alexandre Belloni
2014-07-09 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-09 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-09 7:22 ` Hans de Goede
2014-07-09 7:22 ` Hans de Goede
2014-07-08 13:42 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 13:42 ` Tejun Heo
2014-07-08 17:05 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-08 17:05 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] ata: ahci_platform: add a generic AHCI compatible Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 5/7] Documentation: bindings: document the sub-nodes AHCI bindings Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 6/7] ARM: berlin: add the AHCI node for the BG2Q Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` [PATCH v9 7/7] ARM: berlin: enable the eSATA interface on the BG2Q DMP Antoine Ténart
2014-07-07 10:16 ` Antoine Ténart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140709082331.GA4510@kwain \
--to=antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=jszhang@marvell.com \
--cc=kishon@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zmxu@marvell.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.