[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05ac4282-5ff4-8294-1cfc-da05212acffe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:46:59 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com
Cc: "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:LIBATA SUBSYSTEM (Serial and Parallel ATA drivers)"
<linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:PCI NATIVE HOST BRIDGE AND ENDPOINT DRIVERS"
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 0/2] ata: ahci_brcm: Fix use of BCM7216 reset
controller
On 1/5/21 1:22 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/23/20 4:05 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2020 1:41 PM, Jim Quinlan wrote:
>>> v3 -- discard commit from v2; instead rely on the new function
>>> reset_control_rearm provided in a recent commit [1] applied
>>> to reset/next.
>>> -- New commit to correct pcie-brcmstb.c usage of a reset controller
>>> to use reset/rearm verses deassert/assert.
>>>
>>> v2 -- refactor rescal-reset driver to implement assert/deassert rather than
>>> reset because the reset call only fires once per lifetime and we need
>>> to reset after every resume from S2 or S3.
>>> -- Split the use of "ahci" and "rescal" controllers in separate fields
>>> to keep things simple.
>>>
>>> v1 -- original
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Applied commit "reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable"
>>> found at git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git
>>> branch reset/shared-retrigger
>>
>> The changes in that branch above have now landed in Linus' tree with:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=557acb3d2cd9c82de19f944f6cc967a347735385
>>
>> It would be good if we could get both patches applied via the same tree
>> or within the same cycle to avoid having either PCIe or SATA broken on
>> these platforms.
>
> Ping? Can someone apply those patches if you are happy with them? Thank you.
Ping? Can we review and ideally also apply these patches? Thanks
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists