Hi, Anthony Foiani, I found a MPC8315ERDB rev1.0 board and did some tests. First there is no limit speed issue on the board, so it seems it may only happen on the MPC8315DS board. Second, the SATA can work well with NOR write operation on the ERDB board. So the two issues happened to you should be board issues.
Best Regards, Shaohui Xie > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Foiani [mailto:t...@scrye.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:30 AM > To: Xie Shaohui-B21989 > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: SATA hang on 8315E triggered by heavy flash write? > > Shaohio -- > > Once again, thanks for the reply. > > Xie Shaohui-B21989 <b21...@freescale.com> writes: > > > it seems [recovery or lack of recovery is] not due to speed limiting > > code, 1.5Gbps is still used to recover link. > > Right, I noticed this in my later email on this topic. > > > for the speed limit issue, I checked 3.4.rc7 kernel, there seems a > > place can be used to limit the speed for 8315: > > > > if (!of_device_is_compatible(ofdev->dev.of_node, "fsl,mpc8315- > sata")) { > > temp = ioread32(csr_base + TRANSCFG); > > temp = temp & 0xffffffe0; > > iowrite32(temp | TRANSCFG_RX_WATER_MARK, csr_base + TRANSCFG); > > } else { > > /* the speed limitation code for 8315 may can be put here. > > * just move the original code which wrapped by "#ifdef > CONFIG_MPC8315_DS" here. > > * please let me know if you will give a try. */ > > } > > It's not clear that all uses of the MPC8315 SATA controller have this > problem. It obviously occured on the 8315DS, but apparently that board > never made it to production; it might or might not happen on the 8315ERDB; > and it clearly happens on my vendor's board. > > Given this lack of knowledge, Scott Wood was very hesitant to implement > any far-reaching changes, because we could not pin down exactly what had > to be tested. > > My original patch: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/58710 > > did the speed limiting directly in the sata_fsl code; Jeff Garzik > mentioned that there was some existing infrastructure for this, and I > inferred that he would prefer that I use it. > > So that's what my final patch does, and it's keyed off a single OF value. > > There's a small chance that I'll have the opportunity to move the project > to 3.9 (especially if that release gets declared long-term-stable). Even > then, I unfortunately won't have the bandwidth to pursue getting any of > these approaches into mainline. > The best I can do is get them onto the lists so that others might be able > to benefit later. > > Either way, thanks again. I'll try to put together a package for my > vendor to test with; once I have demonstrated that there is a problem > with their hardware, they have been gracious about accepting that result > and pursuing it with Freescale if necessary. > > Thanks again for your help! > > Best regards, > Anthony Foiani _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
