Re: new ata_port_operations for .pmp_{read,write} ?

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun,
> 
> Here's a first cut at this for discussion.
> 
> You may prefer different names for the invoking functions
> inside libata-pmp.c, rather than simply pmp_read() and pmp_write(),
> but I've been up too long and couldn't think of a better name.
> 
> An alternative to all this, might be to expose the "select_pmp()"
> function shown in the sample code, and have libata-pmp.c call that,
> instead of having the new new .pmp_{read,write} functions.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> * * *
> 
> SATA host controllers which are not purely FIS-based require setup
> of a special register to select the active pmp for taskfile accesses.
> 
> This can be done in the low-level driver for regular command issue
> on a link.  But commands directed at a port-multiplier cause problems,
> because they leave the original link pmp de-selected afterwards.
> 
> To fix this in a sane fashion, without tons of code duplication
> from libata into the low-level driver, it is necessary to be able
> to wrap the sata_pmp_read() and sata_pmp_write() functions.
> 
> This patch provides two new struct ata_port_operations methods for this,
> and modifies the code in libata-pmp to use them if provided.
...

Note that, while this does work for sata_mv, I'm still thinking about it.

I'm not totally clear yet (more reading to do) as to how/when
the ATA shadow/taskfile registers get updated to reflect those
for the currently selected pmp..

It would seem that with other parts of libata-sff directly reading
from the ctl, status, and altstatus "registers" during polling,
command setup, and probing, that there might (?) be a loophole
somewhere in this strategy.

Is this scenario going to be possible:  somebody calls sata_pmp_read()
as part of, say, hotplug polling, and after that operation completes
we then have code that calls ata_check_status() prior to the next
tf_load / command issue ?  If so, they'll see the wrong cached 
shadow status register.

And for that matter, is it possible for sata_pmp_read() to be called
while the link is active with another command ?  Not today, it seems,
but what about when hotplug polling gets implemented ?

Mmm.. an amazing amount of complexity there for something that
ought to be very simple.

More reading to do, but comments from Tejun/others are welcomed.

Thanks.