Subject: [PATCH v7 08/15] ahci-imx: Port to library-ised ahci_platform

From: [email-masked] (Hans de Goede)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 11:38:32 +0100

Hi Russell,

On 02/28/2014 10:08 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * set PHY Paremeters, two steps to configure the GPR13,
>> +		 * one write for rest of parameters, mask of first write
>> +		 * is 0x07ffffff, and the other one write for setting
>> +		 * the mpll_clk_en.
>> +		 */
>> +		regmap_update_bits(imxpriv->gpr, IOMUXC_GPR13,
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_EQ_VAL_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_LOS_LVL_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_DPLL_MODE_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_SPD_MODE_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_MPLL_SS_EN |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_ATTEN_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_BOOST_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_LVL_MASK |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_MPLL_CLK_EN |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_EDGE_RATE,
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_EQ_VAL_3_0_DB |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_LOS_LVL_SATA2M |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_RX_DPLL_MODE_2P_4F |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_SPD_MODE_3P0G |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_MPLL_SS_EN |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_ATTEN_9_16 |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_BOOST_3_33_DB |
>> +				   IMX6Q_GPR13_SATA_TX_LVL_1_025_V);
>
> While I see this, I'll stick an oar in.
>
> It is totally wrong for this to be hard-coded into the driver - many
> of these should be specified via DT, since they're board specific.
> These are already different from the reset default in this register.
>
> The side effect of this hard coding is that eSATA just doesn't work
> at all on some boards - the board I have requires TX_LVL_1_104V and
> TX_BOOST_0_00_DB.

I completely agree that if this is board specific it should be
settable (override-able since we've existing dt files without a setting
for it).

> Hence, I'd ask that while you move stuff like this around, you bear
> in mind that we do need to add additional properties.

I understand, but my interest in the imx code only goes as far as
not making it regress. I already went above and beyond duty by
buying an imx board with sata and cleaning up the horific platform
device driver instantiating a platform device hack there was.

My interest in platform-ahci was to clean it up so that it could be
used as a proper basis to build other ARM ahci drivers on top of,
such as a driver for the allwinner A10 and A20 ahci controller.

While at this I ended up having to clean up the imx driver too, so
as to not break at. As a bonus I fixed it to not loose the harddisk
after a suspend / resume cycle, and that is really as far as my
interest in the imx driver goes.

I'm sure Tejun would welcome patches to add a dts property for
setting the board-specific phy parameters, but I won't be
writing it.

> I'm in two minds about this - whether to make the existing binding
> with its compatible string always use these settings, and invent a
> new compatible string for one which is fully configurable (as it
> _should_ have been from the very start) or whether to make this
> the default if the various properties aren't specified.

IMHO this does not warrant doing a new compatibole-string. Simply
default to the current hardcoded phy settings if no settings are
specified through devicetree.

> Either way, this driver is electrically unusable as it stands here.

That is only true on some boards.

Regards,

Hans