linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: Read Rx water mark value from device-tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:29:42 -0600
From:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:	Anurag Kumar Vulisha <anurag.kumar.vulisha@...inx.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"pawel.moll@....com" <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anirudha Sarangi <anirudh@...inx.com>,
	Srikanth Vemula <svemula@...inx.com>,
	Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri <punnaia@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: Read Rx water mark value from
 device-tree

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:29:55PM +0000, Anurag Kumar Vulisha wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:51 PM
> > To: Anurag Kumar Vulisha
> > Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org; pawel.moll@....com; mark.rutland@....com;
> > ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk; galak@...eaurora.org; tj@...nel.org;
> > devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > ide@...r.kernel.org; Anirudha Sarangi; Srikanth Vemula; Punnaiah Choudary
> > Kalluri
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: Read Rx water mark value from device-
> > tree
> > 
> > On Tuesday 23 February 2016 05:58:32 Anurag Kumar Vulisha wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what is appropriate because I have no idea what
> > > > Rxwatermark is good for. Can you try describing why we can't just
> > > > set it to the correct value for everyone automatically?
> > > >
> > >
> > > This RX watermark level sets the minimum number of free locations
> > > within the RX FIFO .When the rx fifo level crosses the programmed
> > > watermark level ,sata controller  will transmit HOLDS to the device asking it
> > to wait. This happens when dma reads the rx fifo data slower than the device
> > is sending the data. Note that it can take some time for the HOLDs to get to
> > the other end and in the time there must be enough room in the FIFO to
> > absorb all data that could arrive from the device.
> > > Currently we are using 0x40 for this value, which works fine with all
> > > hardware designs  we are currently having. But hoping that this value
> > > may vary for future silicon versions, I wanted to make this as a configurable
> > value. So for this reason I thought of moving it either to device-tree or
> > making it as a module_param() property.
> > >
> > 
> > Ok, so if this depends on the silicon version, your initial approach would be
> > better than the module_param.
> > 
> > I would probably make this dependent on the compatible string instead, and
> > have a table in the device driver that uses a specific value for each variant of
> > the device, but either way should be fine.
> > 
> > Having a separate property is most appropriate if for each hardware revision
> > there is exactly one ideal value, while a table in the driver makes more sense
> > if this takes a bit of tuning and the driver might choose to optimize it
> > differently based on other constraints, such as its own interrupt handler
> > implementation.
> > 
> 
> Since we are  currently having one value in common for all the hardware and also changing
> the rx water mark does not require any changes other than vendor specific PTC register update ,
> I think it would be better  to  use device tree property for that rx watermark value. Doing
> this makes the updating of rx watermark value easy, if any changes required.
> 
> In future, if any silicon version rx water mark value doesn't work with the current versions,
> then  I will do as you said by maintaining the table in device driver. But at present  I feel
> that single rx watermark property in device tree would be enough, since it works with all the
> hardware versions we have.

If you currently have no reason to modify it now, then add it later when 
you actually have a use case.

Rob