[PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: sunxi: Add ahci-sunxi driver for the Allwinner SUNXi SoCs sata

[hdegoede@redhat.com (Hans de Goede)]

Hi,

On 01/05/2014 12:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 05 January 2014, Hans de Goede wrote:

<snip>

>>>> +static int sunxi_ahci_phy_init(struct device *dev, void __iomem *reg_base)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u32 reg_val;
>>>> +	int timeout;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* This magic is from the original code */
>>>> +	writel(0, reg_base + AHCI_RWCR);
>>>> +	mdelay(5);
>>>
>>> This function should probably be in a separate phy driver.  I would
>>> very much hope that we can minimize the required code in an AHCI
>>> driver and move code from this new file into the ahci-platform
>>> driver. The clock, regulator and phy setup can all be optional
>>> properties of the generic driver, and then there shouldn't
>>> be much left that is sunxi specific.
>>
>> Writing a phy driver, and extending ahci-platform to use that
>> was my original plan. But the phy really is part of the
>> ahci ip-block here, and not a separate ip-block. Its registers
>> are smack in the middle of the io-range for the ahci function.
>
> I see. I wonder if the register layout is common with some other
> implementation then. If it's part of the AHCI block, it's probably
> not an Allwinner invention but comes from whoever implemented the
> AHCI.

Right, but so far we've been unable to find anything quite like it.

>> Also note that sunxi_ahci_pre_start_engine is rather sunxi
>> specific. Needing to put that in a generic ahci_platform driver
>> and only activating it for sunxi socs would only serve to
>> prove my point that at some point it is simply easier and
>> better to write a non generic platform glue driver when dealing
>> with exotic ahci ip blocks.
>>
>> If we end up putting all sort of if soca do foo else if socb
>> do bar, else do nothing magic in ahci_platform.c I think we're
>> over generalizing. If something nicely fits as a generic
>> platform dev, by all means we should use a generic platform
>> driver, but that just won't work cleanly here.
>
> Yes, but there may be some middle ground. I still think it would
> be worthwhile to make the clock handling part of the common
> ahci (or ahci-platform) driver and reuse that, since it seems
> to be needed on a number of implementations. IIRC there is already
> some inheritence model in libata that can be used to define
> variations of drivers and have common parts done only once.

Ok, thinking more about this I think I have a solution which
should be acceptable. I'll do a v3 the coming days.

Regards,

Hans