On 26.11.2014 01:26, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:50:41PM +0100, Soeren Moch wrote:
On 11/25/14 23:34, Soeren Moch wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot> --- drivers/block/dwc_ahsata.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/block/dwc_ahsata.c b/drivers/block/dwc_ahsata.c index 9a2b547..e9d4283 100644 --- a/drivers/block/dwc_ahsata.c +++ b/drivers/block/dwc_ahsata.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <asm/errno.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <linux/bitops.h> +#include <linux/compiler.h> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> #include <asm/arch/sys_proto.h> #include "dwc_ahsata.h" @@ -592,6 +593,10 @@ int init_sata(int dev) return 0; }
+__weak void disable_sata_clock(void) +{ +} + int reset_sata(int dev) { struct ahci_probe_ent *probe_ent =
Tom, Nikita,
instead of adding a weak function for architectures without 'disable_sata_clock', should we remove this call from reset_sata entirely?
'reset_sata' is called repeatedly for several devices, but 'disable_sata_clock' has no such device parameter. Which clock should be disabled here? Makes not much sense for me.
BTW, there is an additional problem with 'reset_sata'. If sata support is configured into u-boot, but nobody has called 'sata init' before booting the kernel, I see a data abort exception on bootm. Tested on TBS2910 board (i.MX6Q-based).
I'm fine with reverting the original patch too, which sounds like the best case here.
The original patch is part of a series which as a whole makes sense, I think. Tomorrow I can provide a patch to fix this behavior - it is not so easy to test patches currently, as u-boot-2015.01-rc2 is broken on armhf.
Soeren