Hello,

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:40:00AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

(Cc'ing Hans.)

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Antoine Ténart wrote:

quoted

@@ -482,6 +482,13 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev,
 		port_map &= mask_port_map;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If port_map was filled automatically when finding port sub-nodes,
+	 * make sure we get the right set here.
+	 */
+	if (hpriv->port_map)
+		port_map &= hpriv->port_map;
+

So, hpriv->port is both input and output?  This is messy and can lead
to confusing failures and there now are multiple ways to modify
port_map.  If carrying this information through ahci_host_priv is
necessary, let's remove the direct params and introduce new input
fields to the struct.

We just use hpriv->port_map to check port_map is valid and describes
available ports there.

hpriv->port_map is filed by the generic ahci_platform_get_resources()
function when using the new bindings and not by the drivers. port_map is
the input from the drivers.

quoted

 /**
+ * ahci_platform_enable_phys - Enable PHYs
+ * @hpriv: host private area to store config values
+ *
+ * This function enables all the PHYs found in hpriv->phys, if any.
+ * If a PHY fails to be enabled, it disables all the PHYs already
+ * enabled in reverse order and returns an error.
+ *
+ * RETURNS:
+ * 0 on success otherwise a negative error code
+ */
+int ahci_platform_enable_phys(struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
+{
+	int i, rc = 0;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < hpriv->nphys; i++) {
+		rc = phy_init(hpriv->phys[i]);
+		if (rc)
+			goto disable_phys;
+
+		rc = phy_power_on(hpriv->phys[i]);
+		if (rc) {
+			phy_exit(hpriv->phys[i]);
+			goto disable_phys;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+
+disable_phys:
+	while (--i >= 0) {
+		phy_power_off(hpriv->phys[i]);
+		phy_exit(hpriv->phys[i]);
+	}
+	return rc;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ahci_platform_enable_phys);

Do we need to make hpriv->phys[] dynamically allocated?  We already
have hpriv->clks[AHCI_MAX_CLKS] and it's unlikely that we're gonna
need more than several phys per host.  Let's go with a simpler fixed
array.

Well, a had a review a week ago about in the PHY driver saying I should
avoid using fixed sized arrays... And it was in a driver were we know
the maximum number of PHY available.

I think in this case were the number of PHYs depends on the h/w, we should
use a dynamically allocated array.


Antoine

-- 
Antoine Ténart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html