Re: [PATCH v4 12/23] ata: libahci: Extend port-cmd flags set with port capabilities

Serge Semin
2022-06-28T12:08:34Z

Damien,
Any notes to the comments below?

-Sergey

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:10:55AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 03:52:28PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > On 6/18/22 05:31, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 09:28:18AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > >> On 2022/06/16 5:58, Serge Semin wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 05:32:41PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/10/22 17:17, Serge Semin wrote:
> > >>>>> Currently not all of the Port-specific capabilities listed in the
> > >>>>
> > >>>> s/listed/are listed
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD-enumeration. Let's extend that set with the Cold Presence
> > >>>>> Detection and Mechanical Presence Switch attached to the Port flags [1] so
> > >>>>> to closeup the set of the platform-specific port-capabilities flags. Note
> > >>>>> these flags are supposed to be set by the platform firmware if there is
> > >>>>> one. Alternatively as we are about to do they can be set by means of the
> > >>>>> OF properties.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> While at it replace PORT_IRQ_DEV_ILCK with PORT_IRQ_DMPS and fix the
> > >>>>> comment there. In accordance with [2] that IRQ flag is supposed to
> > >>>>> indicate the state of the signal coming from the Mechanical Presence
> > >>>>> Switch.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] Serial ATA AHCI 1.3.1 Specification, p.27
> > >>>>> [2] Serial ATA AHCI 1.3.1 Specification, p.24, p.88
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Changelog v4:
> > >>>>> - Fix the DMPS macros name in the patch log. (@Sergei Shtylyov)
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> drivers/ata/ahci.h | 7 ++++++-
> > >>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.h b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> > >>>>> index 7d834deefeb9..f501531bd1b3 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
> > >>>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ enum {
> > >>>>> PORT_IRQ_BAD_PMP = (1 << 23), /* incorrect port multiplier */
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> PORT_IRQ_PHYRDY = (1 << 22), /* PhyRdy changed */
> > >>>>> - PORT_IRQ_DEV_ILCK = (1 << 7), /* device interlock */
> > >>>>> + PORT_IRQ_DMPS = (1 << 7), /* mechanical presence status */
> > >>>>> PORT_IRQ_CONNECT = (1 << 6), /* port connect change status */
> > >>>>> PORT_IRQ_SG_DONE = (1 << 5), /* descriptor processed */
> > >>>>> PORT_IRQ_UNK_FIS = (1 << 4), /* unknown FIS rx'd */
> > >>>>> @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ enum {
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_ATAPI = (1 << 24), /* Device is ATAPI */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_FBSCP = (1 << 22), /* FBS Capable Port */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_ESP = (1 << 21), /* External Sata Port */
> > >>>>> + PORT_CMD_CPD = (1 << 20), /* Cold Presence Detection */
> > >>>>> + PORT_CMD_MPSP = (1 << 19), /* Mechanical Presence Switch */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_HPCP = (1 << 18), /* HotPlug Capable Port */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_PMP = (1 << 17), /* PMP attached */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_LIST_ON = (1 << 15), /* cmd list DMA engine running */
> > >>>>> @@ -181,6 +183,9 @@ enum {
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_ICC_PARTIAL = (0x2 << 28), /* Put i/f in partial state */
> > >>>>> PORT_CMD_ICC_SLUMBER = (0x6 << 28), /* Put i/f in slumber state */
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> + PORT_CMD_CAP = PORT_CMD_HPCP | PORT_CMD_MPSP |
> > >>>>> + PORT_CMD_CPD | PORT_CMD_ESP | PORT_CMD_FBSCP,
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> What is this one for ? A comment above it would be nice.
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn't it obviously inferrable from the definition and the item name?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I am guessing from the name. Am I guessing OK ? A comment would still be nice.
> > >> Why just these bits ? There are more cap/support indicator bits in that port cmd
> > >> bitfield. So why this particular set of bits ? What do they mean all together ?
> > >
> > > Normally the variable/constant name should be self-content (as the
> > > kernel coding style doc states and what the common sense suggests). So
> > > the reader could correctly guess its purpose/content/value. In this
> > > case PORT_CMD_CAP - means PORT CMD capabilities mask. All of the
> > > possible flags have been set in that mask. There are no more
> > > capabilities in the PORT CMD register left undeclared. That's why the
> > > name is selected the way it is and why I haven't added any comment in
> > > here (what the kernel coding style says about the over-commenting the
> > > code).
> >
>
> > Yes, I understood from the name what it is. What I do NOT understand is
> > why all the feature bits are not there. Why this subset only ? A comment
> > about that would be nice so that the reason for it is not lost.
>
> Well, because it's indeed "PORT_CMD capabilities mask", and not features,
> not setups, not settings, not status flags, etc. As I said all the port
> Capabilities have been listed in that mask:
> PORT_CMD_FBSCP BIT(22) - FIS-based Switching Capable Port
> PORT_CMD_ESP BIT(21) - External SATA Port
> PORT_CMD_CPD BIT(20) - Cold Presence Detect
> PORT_CMD_MPSP BIT(19) - Mechanical Presence Switch Attached to Port
> PORT_CMD_HPCP BIT(18) - Hot Plug Capable Port
> I've or'ed-them-up in a single mask => PORT_CMD_CAP in order to work
> with them independently from the rest of the PORT_CMD CSR fields.
>
> Unlike the generic controller CAP/CAP2 registers, which consists of the
> device capabilities only, PORT_CMD contains various R/W settings (PM, LED
> driver, etc), RO status flags (CMD-list running, FIS recv running, etc)
> and amongst other the RO/Wo !port-specific capabilities!. The later ones
> indicate the platform-specific device features. Since the register
> contains flags with the intermixed nature, I need to have a mask to at
> least get the capabilities and preserve them between the device
> resets. That's why the PORT_CMD_CAP has been introduced in the
> framework of this patch. Its name was chosen with a reference to the
> CAP registers, see:
> HOST_CAP, HOST_CAP2, and finally my PORT_CMD_CAP.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Sure I can go and read the specs to figure it out. But again, a comment would
> > >> avoid readers of the code to have to decrypt all that.
> > >
> > > If you still insist on having an additional comment. I can add
> > > something like "/* PORT_CMD capabilities mask */". Are you ok with it?
> >
>
> > That does not help on its own. The macro name says that already. I would
> > like a note about why only these features are selected.
>
> Please see the explanation above. I don't see what else to say about
> that mask, because in short what I said above really means "PORT_CMD
> capabilities mask". So should you have some more clever text, which
> would be more suitable here, please tell me and I'll add it to the
> patch.
>
> Regarding what you said earlier. In order to fully understand the
> AHCI driver a hacker would always need to read the specs. There is
> just no way to do that effectively enough without the controller
> manual at hands. And the PORT_CMD capabilities isn't the most
> complicated part of the device.
>
> -Sergey
>
> >
> > >
> > > -Sergey
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> -Sergey
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> /* PORT_FBS bits */
> > >>>>> PORT_FBS_DWE_OFFSET = 16, /* FBS device with error offset */
> > >>>>> PORT_FBS_ADO_OFFSET = 12, /* FBS active dev optimization offset */
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Damien Le Moal
> > >>>> Western Digital Research
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Damien Le Moal
> > >> Western Digital Research
> >
> >
> > --
> > Damien Le Moal
> > Western Digital Research