Jon Li wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am curious as to whether there are plans to add support for integrated
> sata devices. I personally want to add support for a 60x1C0 based
> device (pci:id = 0x5182). I think adding support should be relatively
> simple, except for a few issues outlined below.
>
> In the original mvSata.c (ver3.4) that has 0x5182 support, the config
> space is as such:
>
> case MV_SATA_DEVICE_ID_5182:
> pAdapter->numberOfChannels = MV_SATA_5182_PORT_NUM;
> pAdapter->numberOfUnits = 1;
> pAdapter->portsPerUnit = 2;
> pAdapter->sataAdapterGeneration = MV_SATA_GEN_IIE;
> /*The integrated sata core chip based on 60x1 C0*/
> pAdapter->chipIs60X1C0 = MV_TRUE;
> pAdapter->hostInterface = MV_HOST_IF_INTEGRATED;
> pAdapter->mainMaskOffset = 0x20024; /*the iobaseaddress is
> 0x60000*/
> pAdapter->mainCauseOffset = 0x20020;
> break;
>
> I have not yet figured out how all these values are defined in sata-mv.c
> (ver 0.8). Specifically, where do I define "numberOfChannels" which
> should equal 2, and "numberOfUnits" which obviously equals 1?
>
> I have a current config space (not completed) for sata-mv.c which is:
>
> { /* chip_5182 */
> .sht = &mv_sht,
> .flags = (MV_COMMON_FLAGS | MV_6XXX_FLAGS |
> MV_FLAG_DUAL_HC),
> .pio_mask = 0x1f, /* pio0-4 */
> .udma_mask = 0x7f, /* udma0-6 */
> .port_ops = &mv6_ops,
> },
>
> I believe according to the new structure in sata-mv.c,
> HC_MAIN_IRQ_CAUSE_OFS should equal 0x20020 and HC_MAIN_IRQ_MASK_OFS
> should equal 0x20024 for the 0x5182 device.
>
> My final question is how to implement the MV_HOST_IF_INTEGRATED flag?
> Is this already implemented and renamed in sata-mv.c? Or do I need to
> also add the routines?
I just wanted to point the current sata_mv hackers to this message from
April 2007...
Jeff
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jon Li wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am curious as to whether there are plans to add support for integrated
>> sata devices. I personally want to add support for a 60x1C0 based
>> device (pci:id = 0x5182). I think adding support should be relatively
>> simple, except for a few issues outlined below.
>>
>> In the original mvSata.c (ver3.4) that has 0x5182 support, the config
>> space is as such:
>>
>> case MV_SATA_DEVICE_ID_5182:
>> pAdapter->numberOfChannels = MV_SATA_5182_PORT_NUM;
>> pAdapter->numberOfUnits = 1;
>> pAdapter->portsPerUnit = 2;
>> pAdapter->sataAdapterGeneration = MV_SATA_GEN_IIE;
>> /*The integrated sata core chip based on 60x1 C0*/
>> pAdapter->chipIs60X1C0 = MV_TRUE;
>> pAdapter->hostInterface = MV_HOST_IF_INTEGRATED;
>> pAdapter->mainMaskOffset = 0x20024; /*the iobaseaddress is
>> 0x60000*/
>> pAdapter->mainCauseOffset = 0x20020;
>> break;
>>
>> I have not yet figured out how all these values are defined in sata-mv.c
>> (ver 0.8). Specifically, where do I define "numberOfChannels" which
>> should equal 2, and "numberOfUnits" which obviously equals 1?
>>
>> I have a current config space (not completed) for sata-mv.c which is:
>>
>> { /* chip_5182 */
>> .sht = &mv_sht,
>> .flags = (MV_COMMON_FLAGS | MV_6XXX_FLAGS |
>> MV_FLAG_DUAL_HC),
>> .pio_mask = 0x1f, /* pio0-4 */
>> .udma_mask = 0x7f, /* udma0-6 */
>> .port_ops = &mv6_ops,
>> },
...
Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
-ml
Mark Lord wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jon Li wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am curious as to whether there are plans to add support for integrated
>>> sata devices. I personally want to add support for a 60x1C0 based
>>> device (pci:id = 0x5182). I think adding support should be relatively
>>> simple, except for a few issues outlined below.
>>>
>>> In the original mvSata.c (ver3.4) that has 0x5182 support, the config
>>> space is as such:
>>>
>>> case MV_SATA_DEVICE_ID_5182:
>>> pAdapter->numberOfChannels = MV_SATA_5182_PORT_NUM;
>>> pAdapter->numberOfUnits = 1;
>>> pAdapter->portsPerUnit = 2;
>>> pAdapter->sataAdapterGeneration = MV_SATA_GEN_IIE;
>>> /*The integrated sata core chip based on 60x1 C0*/
>>> pAdapter->chipIs60X1C0 = MV_TRUE;
>>> pAdapter->hostInterface = MV_HOST_IF_INTEGRATED;
>>> pAdapter->mainMaskOffset = 0x20024; /*the iobaseaddress is
>>> 0x60000*/
>>> pAdapter->mainCauseOffset = 0x20020;
>>> break;
>>>
>>> I have not yet figured out how all these values are defined in sata-mv.c
>>> (ver 0.8). Specifically, where do I define "numberOfChannels" which
>>> should equal 2, and "numberOfUnits" which obviously equals 1?
>>>
>>> I have a current config space (not completed) for sata-mv.c which is:
>>>
>>> { /* chip_5182 */
>>> .sht = &mv_sht,
>>> .flags = (MV_COMMON_FLAGS | MV_6XXX_FLAGS |
>>> MV_FLAG_DUAL_HC),
>>> .pio_mask = 0x1f, /* pio0-4 */
>>> .udma_mask = 0x7f, /* udma0-6 */
>>> .port_ops = &mv6_ops,
>>> },
> ...
>
> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely
talking about PCI...
Jeff
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
> > As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
>
> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely talking
> about PCI...
yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and this
is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci device
just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very similar.
saeed
saeed wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
>>> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
>> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely talking
>> about PCI...
> yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and this
> is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci device
> just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very similar.
..
I don't think I understand your english there.
Does the current sata_mv driver work as-is with the chipset this person wants?
If not, then exactly what has to change to make it work?
Thanks
Mark Lord wrote:
> saeed wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
>>>> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
>>> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely
>>> talking
>>> about PCI...
>> yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and
>> this is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci
>> device just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very
>> similar.
> ..
>
> I don't think I understand your english there.
>
> Does the current sata_mv driver work as-is with the chipset this person wants?
> If not, then exactly what has to change to make it work?
..
Saeed ??
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
> saeed wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
> >>> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
> >> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely talking
> >> about PCI...
> > yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and this
> > is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci device
> > just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very similar.
> ..
>
> I don't think I understand your english there.
>
> Does the current sata_mv driver work as-is with the chipset this person wants?
> If not, then exactly what has to change to make it work?
Jon Li was one of the people who started porting Linux to the Marvell
Orion 88F5182 before Marvell did it. sata_mv does now work on the
device Jon was talking about. When this was sent I think we were
unsure whether it could work over PCI or just the system bus which
probably confused things a little.
Cheers,
--
Byron Bradley
Byron Bradley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
>> saeed wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> >
>> >>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for us?
>> >>> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the 60x1C0.
>> >> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely talking
>> >> about PCI...
>> > yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and this
>> > is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci device
>> > just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very similar.
>> ..
>>
>> I don't think I understand your english there.
>>
>> Does the current sata_mv driver work as-is with the chipset this person wants?
>> If not, then exactly what has to change to make it work?
>
> Jon Li was one of the people who started porting Linux to the Marvell
> Orion 88F5182 before Marvell did it. sata_mv does now work on the
> device Jon was talking about. When this was sent I think we were
> unsure whether it could work over PCI or just the system bus which
> probably confused things a little.
..
Thanks for pointing this out.
So, no further action required -- it already works now.
Got that, Jeff?
Cheers
Mark Lord wrote:
> Byron Bradley wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> saeed wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Saeed: isn't this what your SOC patches already implemented for
>>> us?
>>> >>> As near as I can tell, sata_mv now already has support for the
>>> 60x1C0.
>>> >> Saeed's stuff didn't support PCI though, and Jon Li is definitely
>>> talking
>>> >> about PCI...
>>> > yes, my patch added support for the SoC sata like in the 5182, and
>>> this
>>> > is what Jon Li was concerned about. he mentioneded the 60x1C0 pci
>>> device
>>> > just to suggest to use it's code for the SoC sata as it is very
>>> similar.
>>> ..
>>>
>>> I don't think I understand your english there.
>>>
>>> Does the current sata_mv driver work as-is with the chipset this
>>> person wants?
>>> If not, then exactly what has to change to make it work?
>>
>> Jon Li was one of the people who started porting Linux to the Marvell
>> Orion 88F5182 before Marvell did it. sata_mv does now work on the
>> device Jon was talking about. When this was sent I think we were
>> unsure whether it could work over PCI or just the system bus which
>> probably confused things a little.
> ..
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> So, no further action required -- it already works now.
>
> Got that, Jeff?
hehe, thanks :)