On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:57:37 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <200812111624.20543.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> > it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me
> > users
>
> And we still want to have it automatic, just deferred.
>
> > of your board are incapable
On Thursday 11 December 2008 19:15:06 Scott Wood wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:53:00 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> And if they do, the code should fail gracefully, i. e. print some
> >> friendly error message like that S-ATA is not available.
> >
> > in this case, i
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:53:00 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> And if they do, the code should fail gracefully, i. e. print some
>> friendly error message like that S-ATA is not available.
>
> in this case, i think that's up to the controller. i.e. the controller
> doesnt
On Dec 11, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Kumar,
>
> In message <29E3D6BF-AA38-40C3-
> ac21-87dcbbb82...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I agree with Kumare - having to run "sata init" manually is
>>> annoying.
>
> Sorry for the bodus 'e' here.
>
>>> We should auto-run
Dear Kumar,
In message <29e3d6bf-aa38-40c3-ac21-87dcbbb82...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>
>
> > I agree with Kumare - having to run "sata init" manually is annoying.
Sorry for the bodus 'e' here.
> > We should auto-run it upon the first "sata" command if it hasn't been
> > called before (
On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:53:00 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message Mike Frysinger you wrote:
> > > Also, in the code you removed we do a runtime check on 8536 to see if
> > > SATA is even available. That check is still valid.
> >
> > why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user sho
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200812111624.20543.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me users
And we still want to have it automatic, just deferred.
> of your board are incapable of looking at it and going "hmm, this has a SAT
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200812111607.10866.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> having init_sata() be automatic though would prevent hotplugging ... but
> maybe
> people dont care about that ...
No - if you also allow to run "sata init" manually. the thing is that
it just should be done
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200812111556.23044.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Also, in the code you removed we do a runtime check on 8536 to see if
> > SATA is even available. That check is still valid.
>
> why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be
> attemptin
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <3b24dcfa-1309-4b92-a4ae-d9943d332...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>
> > and ...), so it isnt a big deal imo. i asked if Wolfgang wanted it
> > automated
> > and he preferred making the user do it themselves.
>
> This seems backwards to me..
ACK here.
> 'sata
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200812111503.54148.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> it's already standard behavior with most mass storage things (like mmc and sf
> and ...), so it isnt a big deal imo. i asked if Wolfgang wanted it automated
> and he preferred making the user do it themselves.
On Dec 11, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
>
> In message <1228991549-11486-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you
> wrote:
>> Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically
>> during boot,
>> make the user manually run "sata init". This brings t
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1228991549-11486-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during boot,
> make the user manually run "sata init". This brings the SATA subsystem in
> line with common U-Boot policy.
I agree with
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:36:12 Scott Wood wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me
> > users of your board are incapable of looking at it and going "hmm, this
> > has a SATA disk" ? it isnt like disks are tiny and they have to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me users
> of your board are incapable of looking at it and going "hmm, this has a SATA
> disk" ? it isnt like disks are tiny and they have to scan a board for some
> obscure IC. disks are friggin huge.
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:16:12 Scott Wood wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be
> >>> attempting to use it. if they do, that's their faul
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be
>>> attempting to use it. if they do, that's their fault for doing something
>>> stupid.
>> There's no need to be unneces
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> 'sata init' isn't safe. It seems like you should only be able to call
> >> it once. However I think we can keep issuing it and cause bad things
> >> to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
>> 'sata init' isn't safe. It seems like you should only be able to call
>> it once. However I think we can keep issuing it and cause bad things
>> to happen.
>
> i dont think so. the SATA driver should be doing the
On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
>>> boot,
>>> make the user manually run "sata init". This b
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
> > boot,
> > make the user manually run "sata init". This brings the SATA
> > subsystem in
> > line with common U-B
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:18:36 Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > diff --git a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c b/board/freescale/
> > mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
> > index 2b17612..ada8020 100644
> > --- a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
> > +++
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> diff --git a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c b/board/freescale/
> mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
> index 2b17612..ada8020 100644
> --- a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
> +++ b/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
> @@ -582,17 +582,6 @@ ge
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
> boot,
> make the user manually run "sata init". This brings the SATA
> subsystem in
> line with common U-Boot policy.
>
> Along these lines, the "is_sata_supported()" h
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during boot,
make the user manually run "sata init". This brings the SATA subsystem in
line with common U-Boot policy.
Along these lines, the "is_sata_supported()" hook is no longer needed, so
scrub it from the tree.
Signed-off-by: Mi
26 matches
Mail list logo
