linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libahci_platform: support non-consecutive port numbers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <08981396-59d9-4be6-91c7-83421706931a@solid-run.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 11:22:33 +0000
From: Josua Mayer <josua@...id-run.com>
To: Klaus Kudielka <klaus.kudielka@...il.com>, Damien Le Moal
	<dlemoal@...nel.org>, Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>, Hans de Goede
	<hdegoede@...hat.com>
CC: Jon Nettleton <jon@...id-run.com>, Mikhail Anikin
	<mikhail.anikin@...id-run.com>, Yazan Shhady <yazan.shhady@...id-run.com>,
	Rabeeh Khoury <rabeeh@...id-run.com>, "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libahci_platform: support non-consecutive port
 numbers


Am 06.02.25 um 19:42 schrieb Klaus Kudielka:
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 10:34 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Can you try this to see if it restores the probe for the second port:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> index 53b2c7719dc5..91d44302eac9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> @@ -651,8 +651,6 @@ struct ahci_host_priv *ahci_platform_get_resources(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>                  * If no sub-node was found, keep this for device tree
>>                  * compatibility
>>                  */
>> -               hpriv->mask_port_map |= BIT(0);
>> -
>>                 rc = ahci_platform_get_phy(hpriv, 0, dev, dev->of_node);
>>                 if (rc)
>>                         goto err_out;
>>
>>
> Yes, it does.
>
> 6.14.0-rc1 (plus patch above) bootlog
> =====================================
>
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: ahci-mvebu f10a8000.sata: AHCI vers 0001.0000, 32 command slots, 6 Gbps, platform mode
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: ahci-mvebu f10a8000.sata: 2/2 ports implemented (port mask 0x3)
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: ahci-mvebu f10a8000.sata: flags: 64bit ncq sntf led only pmp fbs pio slum part sxs 
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: scsi host0: ahci-mvebu
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: scsi host1: ahci-mvebu
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 mmio [mem 0xf10a8000-0xf10a9fff] port 0x100 irq 40 lpm-pol 0
> Feb 06 19:31:51 spare kernel: ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 mmio [mem 0xf10a8000-0xf10a9fff] port 0x180 irq 40 lpm-pol 0

Can you confirm the physical number of sata ports on your board?

Quick review of u-boot sources suggests it is only a single port,
muxed on serdes #0, while the controller has two:

https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/v2025.01/board/CZ.NIC/turris_omnia/turris_omnia.c#L418

> Feb 05 18:36:40 xxxx kernel: ahci-mvebu f10a8000.sata: 1/2 ports implemented (port mask 0x1)
> ...
> Feb 05 18:36:40 xxxx kernel: ata2: DUMMY

This is clearly result of my patch masking only port 1.

I would be curious whether in another board that has two ports physically,
whether both of them were functional before my patch.

See e.g. Helios-4 DTS based on Armada 388 (similar Turris Omnia)
explicitly specifies two ports below the sata node:

            sata@...00 {
                status = "okay";
                #address-cells = <1>;
                #size-cells = <0>;

                sata0: sata-port@0 {
                    reg = <0>;
                };

                sata1: sata-port@1 {
                    reg = <1>;
                };
            };

I propose that perhaps for the second port explicit node was required.