| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140514154929.GA8016@kwain>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:49:29 +0200
From: Antoine Ténart
<antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Antoine Ténart
<antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, zmxu@...vell.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kishon@...com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com, jszhang@...vell.com,
tj@...nel.org, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] phy: add a driver for the Berlin SATA PHY
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:31:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2014 16:50:02 Antoine Ténart wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 May 2014 11:48:57 Antoine Ténart wrote:
> > > > +static int phy_berlin_sata_power_on(struct phy *phy)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct phy_berlin_desc *desc = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > > > + struct phy_berlin_priv *priv = to_berlin_sata_phy_priv(desc);
> > > > + u32 regval;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock(&priv->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Power up PHY */
> > > > + writel(CONTROL_REGISTER, priv->base + HOST_VSA_ADDR);
> > > > + regval = readl(priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > + regval &= ~(desc->val);
> > > > + writel(regval, priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Configure MBus */
> > > > + writel(MBUS_SIZE_CONTROL, priv->base + HOST_VSA_ADDR);
> > > > + regval = readl(priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > + regval |= MBUS_WRITE_REQUEST_SIZE_128 | MBUS_READ_REQUEST_SIZE_128;
> > > > + writel(regval, priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int phy_berlin_sata_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct phy_berlin_desc *desc = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> > > > + struct phy_berlin_priv *priv = to_berlin_sata_phy_priv(desc);
> > > > + u32 regval;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock(&priv->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Power down PHY */
> > > > + writel(CONTROL_REGISTER, priv->base + HOST_VSA_ADDR);
> > > > + regval = readl(priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > + regval |= desc->val;
> > > > + writel(regval, priv->base + HOST_VSA_DATA);
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > I don't get this part: you have a reference to the phy here,
> > > but then you go poking the phy registers from the SATA driver
> > > rather than calling a PHY API function.
> >
> > The v1 only introduced an AHCI driver. I somewhat agree the PHY
> > operations done in the AHCI driver could be in there.
> >
> > I can move the initialization done in the AHCI driver here, but I'll
> > still need the driver: the Berlin AHCI needs to call the framework
> > generic functions with a custom mask and has custom pm_ops. So I'll
> > end up with a nearly empty AHCI driver, not able to control the port
> > parameters.
> >
> > Or I can put all this in the AHCI driver, but then we'll need to
> > describe the PHYs there (to be able to enable each PHY independently)
> > and add bindings to the SATA ones.
> >
> > What do you think? I prefer the first solution, but we'll have SATA
> > port related configuration in the PHY and a very tiny AHCI driver
> > because I can't really use the default behaviour of the ahci_platform.
>
> I just noticed I quoted the wrong driver with my comment, but I think
> you got what I meant.
>
> Why do you need a custom mask? Is that something you could pass
> as the argument in the phy descriptor using #phy-cells=<1>?
I meant a custom mask in the AHCI driver, when calling the
ahci_platform_init_host() function. Otherwise we'll have problems on the
BG2Q DMP (it only has one PHY available, and not initializing it is not
enough).
>
> > > > + * By default the PHY node is used to request and match a PHY.
> > > > + * We describe one PHY per sub-node here. Use the right node.
> > > > + */
> > > > + phy->dev.of_node = child;
> > > > +
> > > > + priv->phys[phy_id].phy = phy;
> > > > + priv->phys[phy_id].val = desc[phy_id].val;
> > > > + priv->phys[phy_id].index = phy_id;
> > > > + phy_set_drvdata(phy, &priv->phys[phy_id]);
> > >
> > > And here, you set a driver specific value into a structure used by the
> > > PHY.
> >
> > Values in priv->phys[] are related to the PHYs. phy_set_drvdata() allows
> > to store PHY related data, which is what I'm doing there. Nearly all PHY
> > drivers are doing this.
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> This part is really ok, I got confused when I replied to the wrong email.
> Sorry about this.
>
> > > Both of these are layering violations. You should either use the PHY
> > > interfaces correctly so the SATA driver doesn't have to know about the
> > > specific, or not use a PHY device node at all and do everything in
> > > the SATA front-end.
> >
> > To be sure: you mean using the PHY init() interface in the AHCI driver?
>
> If this PHY is specific to the ahci-berlin hardware and not shared with
> anything else, you don't really need to split out a phy driver. That
> would somewhat simplify what you ahve here.
I don't have lots of info about that, but we set the PHY to
PHY_MODE_SATA in the AHCI driver. So I guess there are other modes.
Maybe Jisheng can help us with this?
>
> The alternative is to make it as generic as you can. If you can manage
> to move all the phy code into phy-berlin-sata driver, it should be
> possible to just extend the ahci-platform driver resume function to
> reinitialize the phy if there is one.
It is possible to move all the PHY code the phy-berlin-sata. Then I'll
need to hack a bit the AHCI framework so it can handle more than one
PHY. But as I said, I'll still need to set a custom mask, and adding a
quirk to the AHCI platform or framework does not seem to be a very good
idea, imho.
Or I can add a computed mask to the ahci-platform driver, like I did in
the Berlin one, but I don't know what would be the consequences. For
each PHY I have:
+ mask |= 1 << i;
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
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