On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 07:12:14AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:07:35PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote:
> > @@ -1358,6 +1359,7 @@ static int mv_scr_write(struct ata_link *link,
> > unsigned int sc_reg_in, u32 val)
> >
> > if (ofs != 0xffffffffU) {
> > void __iomem *addr = mv_ap_base(link->ap) + ofs;
> > + void __iomem *lp_phy_addr = mv_ap_base(link->ap) + LP_PHY_CTL;
> > if (sc_reg_in == SCR_CONTROL) {
> > /*
> > * Workaround for 88SX60x1 FEr SATA#26:
> > @@ -1374,6 +1376,14 @@ static int mv_scr_write(struct ata_link *link,
> > unsigned int sc_reg_in, u32 val)
> > */
> > if ((val & 0xf) == 1 || (readl(addr) & 0xf) == 1)
> > val |= 0xf000;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Setting PHY speed according to SControl speed
> > + */
> > + if ((val & 0xf0) == 0x10)
> > + writelfl(0x7, lp_phy_addr);
> > + else
> > + writelfl(0x227, lp_phy_addr);
>
> Do we know that this is safe for all sata_mvs? If other sata_mvs
> haven't had the described issue, maybe this should be applied
> selectively to the said soc? I'd actually prefer to avoid such
> conditionals but we need to confirm this is okay for other
> implementations.
Hi Tejun
I've tested on Kirkwood, and not had problems. But i agree with
you. We need somebody in Marvell to say this is safe with all sata_mv
variants.
Lior, can you comment?
Thanks
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
