Hi Sinan,
-----Original Message----- From: Sinan Akman [mailto:sinan@writeme.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 2:04 PM To: Tang Yuantian-B29983 Yuantian.Tang@freescale.com; Sun York-R58495 yorksun@freescale.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] arm: Add sata support on Layerscape ARMv8 board
Hi Yuantian
On 06/12/15 10:09 PM, Yuantian Tang wrote:
Hi York,
Please see explanation inline. [...] I was trying to use one function for all, but I found separating them is
better.
Take ls1043a and ls2080a as an example, ls2080a has two controllers, while
ls1043a has one.
Ls2080a has two registers that need to be updated while ls1043a has four. A lot of #ifdef are needed if we unify them, not mention that in the future,
changing one of the platforms' register will affect the other.
You might want to take into consideration that in the near future we will bemoving this to dm. In that respect having all that in one file already will probably make things much easier. If you consider this, perhaps you will have a different view.
They are in the same file but different functions.
Maybe I am not thinking it through. If you can give me more detail that
viable, I can give a try.
[...] ports, so we have to choice one. In this case I choice the first one which is SATA1.
This should be put into comment, or README if you have one.
This phenomenon is not LS platform specific, that's uboot's issue which
needs another patch to fix.
I think uboot know that and choice to not fix it because for uboot
supporting two sata port is not that significant.
Again, with dm and reading all the hardware properties from device tree will also change this. If both device nodes are enabled we will have to support both as long as there is no hardware limitation. So I think there is no reason why having both SATA and PCIe would not be significant. It is just that the current implementation has this limitation and there is already some timeline for removing these limitations.
I am not seeing what we are arguing here? Are we talking about if this limitation is important? Please point out what's wrong with this patch.
Regards, Yuantian
Regards Sinan Akman