[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50893FC8.1050503@free-electrons.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:34:00 +0200
From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
CC: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Ian Molton <ian.molton@...ethink.co.uk>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
Maen Suleiman <maen@...vell.com>,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Shadi Ammouri <shadi@...vell.com>,
Eran Ben-Avi <benavi@...vell.com>,
Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday@...vell.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Ike Pan <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Jani Monoses <jani.monoses@...onical.com>,
Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@...onical.com>,
Dan Frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@....com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
David Marlin <dmarlin@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: mvebu: adding SATA support: dt binding and config
update
On 10/25/2012 03:21 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Jason,
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:18:18 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
>
>>> Jason, Andrew, do you want I split this patch as suggested by
>>> Thomas or are you fine with having one single patch?
>>
>> Yes, please make the defconfig changes a separate patch. Also, please
>> make sure only the minimum is enabled (eq RAID... isn't needed).
>
> I haven't looked in details at the driver, but is nr-ports = <foo> the
> right way of doing things? We may have platforms were port 0 is not
> used, but port 1 is used, and just a number of ports doesn't allow to
> express this.
>
> Shouldn't the DT property be
>
> ports = <0>, <1>
> ports = <1>
> ports = <1>, <3>
>
> In order to allow to more precisely enabled SATA ports? Or maybe the
> SATA ports cannot be enabled/disabled on a per-port basis, in which
> case I'm obviously wrong here.
The actual implementation of mv_sata.c doesn't work like this. You can
only pass the number of ports supported not the list of the port you
want to support. I've checked in the device tree binding documentation
_and_ also in the code.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
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