lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ata: ahci-platform: add reset control support
From
Date
Hi,

On 05-04-18 13:23, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:54:29 +0200
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:30:53AM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>>> Add support to get and control a list of resets for the device
>>> as optional and shared. These resets must be kept de-asserted until
>>> the device is enabled.
>>>
>>> This is specified as shared because some SoCs like UniPhier series
>>> have common reset controls with all ahci controller instances.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt | 1 +
>>> drivers/ata/ahci.h | 1 +
>>> drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> This causes a regression on Tegra because we explicitly request the
>> resets after the call to ahci_platform_get_resources().
>>
>> From a quick look, ahci_mtk and ahci_st are in the same boat, adding the
>> corresponding maintainers to Cc.
>>
>> Patrice, Matthias: does SATA still work for you after this patch? This
>> has been in linux-next since next-20180327.
>
> I assume that I use "generic-ahci" driver directly, and this driver has
> no way to handle resets, so I sent this patch.
>
> However, also as far as I look, some hardware-specific drivers handle their
> own resets, and call ahci_platform_{enable,disable}_resources().
> Surely there are paths to call reset control twice in such drivers.
>
> Identically, when the driver also handle their own clocks, they have same issue.
>
>> Given how this is one of the more hardware-specific bits, perhaps a
>> better way to do this is to move reset handling into a Uniphier driver
>> much like Tegra, Mediatek and ST?
>
> Since it's difficult to write the resets in general with ahci_platform, I can prepare
> hardware-specific driver for our SoCs >
>> That said, I don't see SATA support for any of the Socionext hardware
>> either in the DT bindings or drivers/ata, so perhaps it'd be best to
>> back this out again until we have something that's more well tested?
>
> I'm about to use the generic driver, and prepare our phy driver and
> DT bindings for our SoCs, but not yet.

If the AHCI controller on your SoC works with the generic driver +
a phy-driver using the generic phy framework, then IMHO that is
preferred over adding yet another SoC specific AHCI driver. If the
only reason to do a SoC specific AHCI driver is the need for resets,
then IMHO we should add a flags parameter to ahci_platform_get_resources
which specifies which resource-types to get and have the existing
drivers call ahci_platform_get_resources() without the flag to also
get resets, where as the generic driver would get resets.

Thierry that should solve the problem, right ?

> Then it's no problem that we can back this out.

Yes reverting it for now is probably best, but I would like to see
it get re-introduced while at the same time adding a flags parameter
to ahci_platform_get_resources() and make the reset handling conditional
on the flags. This IMHO is better then introducing another SoC driver.

Regards,

Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-05 13:31    [W:0.088 / U:7.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site