Hi,

On Saturday 25 October 2014 01:55 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:14:55PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:

quoted

On 21.10.2014 11:40, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:

quoted

On 10/21/2014 11:33 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:37 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:

quoted

Currently, Berlin SATA PHY driver assumes PHY_BASE address being
constant. While this PHY_BASE is correct for BG2Q, older BG2 PHY_BASE
is different. Prepare the driver for BG2 support by moving the phy_base
into private driver data.

Acked-by: Antoine T?nart <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>

...

quoted

quoted

---
 drivers/phy/phy-berlin-sata.c | 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-berlin-sata.c

b/drivers/phy/phy-berlin-sata.c
index 69ced52d72aa..9682b0f66177 100644

--- a/drivers/phy/phy-berlin-sata.c
+++ b/drivers/phy/phy-berlin-sata.c

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
 #define MBUS_WRITE_REQUEST_SIZE_128    (BIT(2) << 16)
 #define MBUS_READ_REQUEST_SIZE_128    (BIT(2) << 19)

-#define PHY_BASE        0x200
+#define BG2Q_PHY_BASE        0x200

[...]

quoted

quoted

+static u32 bg2q_sata_phy_base = BG2Q_PHY_BASE;
+
+static const struct of_device_id phy_berlin_sata_of_match[] = {
+    {
+        .compatible = "marvell,berlin2q-sata-phy",
+        .data = &bg2q_sata_phy_base,

Can't the base directly come from dt?

You are suggesting a "marvell,phy-base-address" property, right?
I have no strong opinion about it, I accept your call (or DT maintainer
ones).

Kishon,

I still have the DT patches for BG2Q queued up for v3.19 (I missed the
arm-soc merge window for v3.18). That means, there has been no release
with the phy binding used and I can rework a little more.

Can you please confirm that you want a DT property for the phy base address,
e.g. marvell,phy-base-address = <{0x200,0x80}> ?

If so, I'd also rename the compatible from berlin2q-sata-phy to more
generic berlin-sata-phy.

I think what Kishon is asking, is why this 0x200 offset isn't already on
reg. so that instead of, e.g.:

	reg = <0x40000000 0x1000>;

you would have:

	reg = <0x40000200 0x1000>;

I had something similar to what Sebastian suggested in mind. I think phy_base
is used for a different reason and can't be directly used in 'reg'.

Thanks
Kishon