From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754418AbcC3S5M (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:57:12 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f193.google.com ([209.85.161.193]:35956 "EHLO mail-yw0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752267AbcC3S5I (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:57:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:57:06 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Andy Gross , Hans de Goede , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jmaggard10@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] libahci: save port map for forced port map Message-ID: <20160330185706.GQ7822@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1459257075-21393-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1459257075-21393-2-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1459257075-21393-2-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > In usecases where force_port_map is used saved_port_map is never set, > resulting in not programming the PORTS_IMPL register as part of intial > config. This patch fixes this by setting it to port_map even in case > where force_port_map is used, making it more inline with other parts of > the code. > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla > --- > drivers/ata/libahci.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c > index 3982054..a5d7c1c 100644 > --- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c > +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c > @@ -507,6 +507,7 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev, struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv) > dev_info(dev, "forcing port_map 0x%x -> 0x%x\n", > port_map, hpriv->force_port_map); > port_map = hpriv->force_port_map; > + hpriv->saved_port_map = port_map; So, the only change it'd cause is making the driver write the forced value to the PI register. Does that make sense? Thanks. -- tejun