From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D56A2AD0F; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707381459; cv=none; b=H1FJwCI1jq1+fpcLFHV1oGoBrMTGudq9tLwUuGZO31RWMm16ijoe6RHfzDqneCc6WZzWWcwEF9FMaZmy+6vJhoA6daWZQUomT6hqnqIrAvoJ7D2qxjaVRVic5cwdqIFWl7dB6HUFdg7aR+7DhR4Pb1fBZQgXF9AG4EXNx+ScgA4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707381459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=b5gZnmEnZGLQKphN0ZRBk6/TZwqmzHAkM/DeYXqpe80=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SM3oAYTm8Uz3ZCzlsEW9BiUQ+fKsRPFbNNCbEfCCiyLmeB7A5SrV3fx8oC+NJrncHpAE8krm34+k244TDI1WdG43Zf0OAZm5eBbmTGIZ1lj2G5QbhKb9tr/R02+oWDg2P0NVlKHB9HmXUGX2lw+DJQPJmmZGrQeOKUaBEg+jkg4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TekFmZBf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TekFmZBf" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B76A8C43390; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:37:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1707381459; bh=b5gZnmEnZGLQKphN0ZRBk6/TZwqmzHAkM/DeYXqpe80=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TekFmZBfEX0YmnErNWGdsnIhI0d13mC+i+IInYe8vsAzT0zR7Ox1Mxs3xM9CDeuYz NCaIz5ZwBF59txD0H7ZZiQI8GP9LXzEgeSQobE46TxcK3FVlFfpl70UlCwVMkJeC0p /x4zcPjlNaWZxJmIZxcJcG+aI7kqCFMJ87wsZ8J10Q4Zp1suDBrvjFQ/nvNhWKuKLk XUwtSvVGlxc03I4S7JnXczFVJ0WKiz8MSqlKADrrK6/NpyyB8kupSGnP8wT5nBNcbT JOMH8a4MmI6hM2k4FwvXb7VlzfUfM6krLNEzg6bZC/RUwfqLVCiV5bdoI8be7I+pQa L9QPBZnMfypfw== Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:37:32 +0100 From: Niklas Cassel To: Andrey Melnikov , Serge Semin Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dlemoal@kernel.org, hdegoede@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ahci: asm1064: correct count of reported ports Message-ID: References: <7559d940-f191-4fe0-e147-17ffa6c1dfc4@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello Serge, Andrey, On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:27:11AM +0300, Andrey Melnikov wrote: > > On 2/7/24 12:58 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote: > > > > > The ASM1064 SATA host controller always reports wrongly, > > > that it has 24 ports. But in reality, it only has four ports. > > > > > > before: > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: SSS flag set, parallel bus scan disabled > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xffff0f impl SATA mode > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led only pio sxs deso sadm sds apst > > > > > > after: > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: ASM1064 has only four ports > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: forcing port_map 0xffff0f -> 0xf > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: SSS flag set, parallel bus scan disabled > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: AHCI 0001.0301 32 slots 24 ports 6 Gbps 0xf impl SATA mode > > > ahci 0000:04:00.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led only pio sxs deso sadm sds apst > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Jr. Melnikov > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c > > > index da2e74fce2d9..ec30d8330d16 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c > > > @@ -671,9 +671,14 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(mobile_lpm_policy, "Default LPM policy for mobile chipsets"); > > > static void ahci_pci_save_initial_config(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > > struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv) > > > { > > > - if (pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASMEDIA && pdev->device == 0x1166) { > > > - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "ASM1166 has only six ports\n"); > > > - hpriv->saved_port_map = 0x3f; > > > + if (pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASMEDIA) { > > > + if (pdev->device == 0x1166) { > > > > Maybe *switch* instead? > > Ok. > Can someone explain to me - which method I should use here - override > portmap via hpriv->saved_port_map or mask it via hpriv->mask_port_map > ? Serge, you seem to be the last person to touch this in commit 88589772e80c ("ata: libahci: Discard redundant force_port_map parameter"), where you removed force_port_map, so you are already familiar with this code. >From my quick look, it looks like mask_port_map is used to disable one or more ports from the port_map. But do you know if there is a reason why platforms that need to do that can't just change saved_port map directly? Kind regards, Niklas