[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinJxu9+kSgb3jYBEBMy9igg0vp1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:04:23 -0700
From: Jian Peng <jipeng2005@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Michael Leun <lkml20100708@...ton.leun.net>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.6.38-rc7] Revert "libata: ahci_start_engine compliant
to AHCI spec"
Hi, Tejun,
Defintely. I will clarify it as much as possible and meanwhile, wait
for it to be tested by reporters.
Thanks,
Jian
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:02:56AM -0700, Jian Peng wrote:
>> Hi, Tejun/Valdis,
>>
>> Since this is an interoperability issue of SATA host controller, the first
>> step I want to try it to make sure the tweak that MAKE my controller WORK
>> does not break other controllers.
>> You are both right that adding this majic 5ms delay at this place should not
>> be the final solution.
>>
>> If this magic 5ms delay works on other affected systems, I plan to post a
>> new patch that inside ahci_start_engine(), still perform same check, and
>> show warning message if failed, but will set a flag, then still set START
>> bit, and if there is such failure flag, add 5ms delay.
>
> Yeah, sounds like a plan but please add ample comment explaining
> what's going on for which controller including link to the mailing
> list threads. As we're basically adding a black magic, I would still
> like to enable it only for the affected controllers so that we don't
> have to worry whether there are controllers which are affected by this
> problem but we don't know about.
>
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c 2011-05-18 14:23:36.564665643 -0700
>> +++ c/drivers/ata/libahci.c 2011-05-20 09:48:06.194663506 -0700
>> @@ -540,6 +540,7 @@
>> void __iomem *port_mmio = ahci_port_base(ap);
>> u32 tmp;
>> u8 status;
>> + int err = 0;
>
> I think
>
> bool stat_failed = false;
>
> would be more in line with recent coding style.
>
>> status = readl(port_mmio + PORT_TFDATA) & 0xFF;
>>
>> @@ -553,12 +554,12 @@
>> * specific controller will fail under this condition
>> */
>> if (status & (ATA_BUSY | ATA_DRQ))
>> - return;
>> + err = 1;
>> else {
>> ahci_scr_read(&ap->link, SCR_STATUS, &tmp);
>>
>> if ((tmp & 0xf) != 0x3)
>> - return;
>> + err = 1;
>> }
>>
>> /* start DMA */
>> @@ -566,6 +567,13 @@
>> tmp |= PORT_CMD_START;
>> writel(tmp, port_mmio + PORT_CMD);
>> readl(port_mmio + PORT_CMD); /* flush */
>> +
>> + /* Some controllers need longer time to be ready */
>> + if(err) {
>> + printk(KERN_WARNING
>> + "Controller in wrong state when setting START bit\n");
>> + msleep(5);
>
> ata_port_printk()?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists