[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50894534.2000602@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:57:08 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
CC: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Ike Pan <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Ian Molton <ian.molton@...ethink.co.uk>,
David Marlin <dmarlin@...hat.com>,
Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday@...vell.com>,
Jani Monoses <jani.monoses@...onical.com>,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Dan Frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
Eran Ben-Avi <benavi@...vell.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@....com>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@...onical.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Maen Suleiman <maen@...vell.com>,
Shadi Ammouri <shadi@...vell.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: mvebu: adding SATA support: dt binding and config
update
On 10/25/2012 08:34 AM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 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.
Is that a statement about the driver or the h/w? It does not matter what
the driver does. If the h/w can support skipping a port, then the dts
should allow that.
A bitmask would be most appropriate here (and matches how AHCI does the
equivalent).
Rob
--
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