From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: yangxingui <yangxingui@huawei.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liuyonglong@huawei.com,
kangfenglong@huawei.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-sata: retry hardreset when device detected but PHY not established
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:46:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afMW2scJrBSI_jLo@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c78f6dad-b0fe-a2fb-8458-9fe182cd6b54@huawei.com>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 03:01:48PM +0800, yangxingui wrote:
> > > > > > This is preceeded by a call to sata_link_resume(), which calls
> > > > > > sata_link_debounce() and that function makes sure that DET is stable. So if
> > > > > > after that DET still shows that their is no PHY, there is likely a big problem
> > > > > > with it and it is super slow to be established.
I agree with Damien, sata_link_debounce() is supposed to make sure that
DET is stable.
sata_link_debounce() will not explicitly wait for SStatus.DET to turn 0x3.
If value is stable, and SStatus.DET == 1, and time is before "deadline",
sata_link_debounce() will continue looping.
Else, if value is stable, and has been stable for "duration" amount of time,
it will return.
Since your print shows that SStatus == 1, that most likely means that the
deadline expired in sata_link_debounce().
I suggest that you try to increase the deadline, perhaps start off by simply
multiplying it by some factor in sata_link_debounce().
It would also be helpful if your commit message explained why returning
-EAGAIN makes a difference, because from what I can see, if the deadline
expires, sata_link_debounce() returns 0, which should cause sata_link_resume()
to return 0, which should cause sata_link_hardreset() to
return 0, with online == false.
If that is the case ata_do_reset() would return 0, and
ata_eh_followup_srst_needed() (returns true only if -EAGAIN) would return false.
Which should eventually cause us to retry another hard reset, as long as
tries <= max_tries.
By making sata_link_hardreset() return -EAGAIN, the difference I see is that
we will for a software reset followed by the hardreset, but you commit message
did not mention that.
So, my question is, why is it not sufficient to retry another
hardreset/COMRESET?
Does it work to only do a hardreset (without if a follow up softreset) if you
increase the deadline?
Kind regards,
Niklas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-30 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-25 6:04 [PATCH] ata: libata-sata: retry hardreset when device detected but PHY not established Xingui Yang
2026-04-25 22:53 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-04-27 1:51 ` yangxingui
2026-04-27 4:45 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-04-29 1:14 ` yangxingui
2026-04-29 1:36 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-04-29 7:01 ` yangxingui
2026-04-30 8:46 ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
2026-04-30 9:28 ` Niklas Cassel
2026-04-27 13:17 ` Niklas Cassel
2026-04-29 1:06 ` yangxingui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=afMW2scJrBSI_jLo@ryzen \
--to=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=kangfenglong@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
--cc=yangxingui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox