[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405095924.GB7506@ulmo>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:59:24 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: ahci-platform: add reset control support
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:30:53AM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> > Add support to get and control a list of resets for the device
> > as optional and shared. These resets must be kept de-asserted until
> > the device is enabled.
> >
> > This is specified as shared because some SoCs like UniPhier series
> > have common reset controls with all ahci controller instances.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt | 1 +
> > drivers/ata/ahci.h | 1 +
> > drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++---
> > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> This causes a regression on Tegra because we explicitly request the
> resets after the call to ahci_platform_get_resources().
>
> From a quick look, ahci_mtk and ahci_st are in the same boat, adding the
> corresponding maintainers to Cc.
>
> Patrice, Matthias: does SATA still work for you after this patch? This
> has been in linux-next since next-20180327.
>
> Given how this is one of the more hardware-specific bits, perhaps a
> better way to do this is to move reset handling into a Uniphier driver
> much like Tegra, Mediatek and ST?
>
> That said, I don't see SATA support for any of the Socionext hardware
> either in the DT bindings or drivers/ata, so perhaps it'd be best to
> back this out again until we have something that's more well tested?
Tejun,
I just noticed that Linus already pulled this for v4.17, so backing out
isn't going to work anymore. Still, I don't think this is tested well
enough, and given the lack of users of this I think a revert is the best
option at this point.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists