On 10/25/2012 08:34 AM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 10/25/2012 03:21 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Jason, >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:18:18 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: >> >>>> Jason, Andrew, do you want I split this patch as suggested by >>>> Thomas or are you fine with having one single patch? >>> >>> Yes, please make the defconfig changes a separate patch. Also, please >>> make sure only the minimum is enabled (eq RAID... isn't needed). >> >> I haven't looked in details at the driver, but is nr-ports = <foo> the >> right way of doing things? We may have platforms were port 0 is not >> used, but port 1 is used, and just a number of ports doesn't allow to >> express this. >> >> Shouldn't the DT property be >> >> ports = <0>, <1> >> ports = <1> >> ports = <1>, <3> >> >> In order to allow to more precisely enabled SATA ports? Or maybe the >> SATA ports cannot be enabled/disabled on a per-port basis, in which >> case I'm obviously wrong here. > > The actual implementation of mv_sata.c doesn't work like this. You can > only pass the number of ports supported not the list of the port you > want to support. I've checked in the device tree binding documentation > _and_ also in the code.
Is that a statement about the driver or the h/w? It does not matter what the driver does. If the h/w can support skipping a port, then the dts should allow that. A bitmask would be most appropriate here (and matches how AHCI does the equivalent). Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
