ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Gaston, Jason D]

Hello,

ICH9 has DeviceID's for 2 port, IDE mode, SATA controllers.  The current
port map in ata_piix is setup for the 4 port controllers.  This seems to
work ok, but I wonder if a new port map should be defined for the 2 port
controllers, where the two ports are PM, SM?  You can refer to the ICH9
Datasheet on intel.com for detail.

Currently, ata_piix has ICH9 using this:

static const struct piix_map_db ich8_map_db = {
	.mask = 0x3,
	.port_enable = 0x3,
	.map = {
		/* PM   PS   SM   SS       MAP */
		{  P0,  P2,  P1,  P3 }, /* 00b (hardwired when in AHCI)
*/
		{  RV,  RV,  RV,  RV },
		{  P0,  P2, IDE, IDE }, /* 10b (IDE mode) */
		{  RV,  RV,  RV,  RV },
	},
};

Thanks,

Jason

Re: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Tejun Heo]

Gaston, Jason D wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> ICH9 has DeviceID's for 2 port, IDE mode, SATA controllers.  The current
> port map in ata_piix is setup for the 4 port controllers.  This seems to
> work ok, but I wonder if a new port map should be defined for the 2 port
> controllers, where the two ports are PM, SM?  You can refer to the ICH9
> Datasheet on intel.com for detail.

Yes, please go ahead and define new entry for the controllers.  Thanks.

-- 
tejun

RE: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Gaston, Jason D]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tejun Heo [mailto:htejun@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:08 PM
>To: Gaston, Jason D
>Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?
>
>Gaston, Jason D wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> ICH9 has DeviceID's for 2 port, IDE mode, SATA controllers.  The
current
>> port map in ata_piix is setup for the 4 port controllers.  This seems
to
>> work ok, but I wonder if a new port map should be defined for the 2
port
>> controllers, where the two ports are PM, SM?  You can refer to the
ICH9
>> Datasheet on intel.com for detail.
>
>Yes, please go ahead and define new entry for the controllers.  Thanks.
>
>--
>Tejun

What is the difference between NA and RV?  If the controller only has
access to 2 ports, does it matter which I set the nonexistent port
values to in the map?

Thanks,

Jason

Re: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Tejun Heo]

Gaston, Jason D wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tejun Heo [mailto:htejun@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:08 PM
>> To: Gaston, Jason D
>> Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?
>>
>> Gaston, Jason D wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> ICH9 has DeviceID's for 2 port, IDE mode, SATA controllers.  The
> current
>>> port map in ata_piix is setup for the 4 port controllers.  This seems
> to
>>> work ok, but I wonder if a new port map should be defined for the 2
> port
>>> controllers, where the two ports are PM, SM?  You can refer to the
> ICH9
>>> Datasheet on intel.com for detail.
>> Yes, please go ahead and define new entry for the controllers.  Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Tejun
> 
> What is the difference between NA and RV?  If the controller only has
> access to 2 ports, does it matter which I set the nonexistent port
> values to in the map?

NA is used for unimplemented ports of a valid configuration while RV is
used to mark invalid MAP value.  So, NA should be mixed with P[0-3]
while RV can't be mixed with any other values.

-- 
tejun

RE: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Gaston, Jason D]

>> What is the difference between NA and RV?  If the controller only has
>> access to 2 ports, does it matter which I set the nonexistent port
>> values to in the map?
>
>NA is used for unimplemented ports of a valid configuration while RV is
>used to mark invalid MAP value.  So, NA should be mixed with P[0-3]
>while RV can't be mixed with any other values.
>
>--
>Tejun

When you say "can't be mixed" do you mean I should not have [P0 RV P1
RV] on the same line?  If that is the case, then I assume my only
choice, for the 2 port controller (physically ports 5 & 6) would be [P0
NA P1 NA].

Thanks!

Jason

Re: ICH9 2 port SATA controller port map?

[Tejun Heo]

Gaston, Jason D wrote:
>>> What is the difference between NA and RV?  If the controller only has
>>> access to 2 ports, does it matter which I set the nonexistent port
>>> values to in the map?
>> NA is used for unimplemented ports of a valid configuration while RV is
>> used to mark invalid MAP value.  So, NA should be mixed with P[0-3]
>> while RV can't be mixed with any other values.
>>
>> --
>> Tejun
> 
> When you say "can't be mixed" do you mean I should not have [P0 RV P1
> RV] on the same line?  If that is the case, then I assume my only
> choice, for the 2 port controller (physically ports 5 & 6) would be [P0
> NA P1 NA].

Yeap, that's correct.

-- 
tejun