Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Tim Ellis]

Hi,
This change causes attached drives to no longer be detected and  
function on the PowerPC Buffalo Linkstation machines:

<7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.8
<6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
<6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
<6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
<6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
<6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18

If I roll back this driver to before this change with 2.6.24.2 it works:

<7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.7
<6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
<6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
<6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
<6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xbffed0 ctl 0xbffed8 bmdma 0xbffef0  
irq 18
<6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xbffee0 ctl 0xbffee8 bmdma 0xbffef8  
irq 18
<6>ata1.00: ATA-6: WDC WD3200JB-00KFA0, 08.05J08, max UDMA/100
<6>ata1.00: 625142448 sectors, multi 0: LBA48
<6>ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
<5>scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      WDC WD3200JB-00K 08.0 PQ:  
0 ANSI: 5
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors (320073 MB)
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
<7>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,  
doesn't support DPO or FUA
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors (320073 MB)
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
<7>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,  
doesn't support DPO or FUA
<6> sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk
<5>sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0

I have ensured the other sil680 driver is not enabled!

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:58 +0000, Tim Ellis wrote:

> This change causes attached drives to no longer be detected and  
> function on the PowerPC Buffalo Linkstation machines:
> 
> <7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.8
> <6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
> <6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
> <6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
> <6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
> <6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
> 
> If I roll back this driver to before this change with 2.6.24.2 it works:

Hrm... and we need those patches for blades that have a sil680
controller with no working PIO on the PCI host...

That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or specs) who
can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?

I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one to me
I could do more investigation.

Ben.

> <7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.7
> <6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
> <6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
> <6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
> <6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xbffed0 ctl 0xbffed8 bmdma 0xbffef0  
> irq 18
> <6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xbffee0 ctl 0xbffee8 bmdma 0xbffef8  
> irq 18
> <6>ata1.00: ATA-6: WDC WD3200JB-00KFA0, 08.05J08, max UDMA/100
> <6>ata1.00: 625142448 sectors, multi 0: LBA48
> <6>ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> <5>scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      WDC WD3200JB-00K 08.0 PQ:  
> 0 ANSI: 5
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors (320073 MB)
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> <7>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,  
> doesn't support DPO or FUA
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 625142448 512-byte hardware sectors (320073 MB)
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> <7>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled,  
> doesn't support DPO or FUA
> <6> sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk
> <5>sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
> 
> I have ensured the other sil680 driver is not enabled!

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Alan Cox]

> That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or specs) who
> can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
> 
> I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one to me
> I could do more investigation.

Did anyone fix all the mmio posting bugs in libata-core that were pointed
out when I originally NAKked using MMIO, or did they just add the driver.

If the latter then you need to grep the various fix this notes in
libata-core around reset/probe of an SFF controller in particular.

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:58 +0000, Tim Ellis wrote:
> 
> > This change causes attached drives to no longer be detected and  
> > function on the PowerPC Buffalo Linkstation machines:
> > 
> > <7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.8
> > <6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
> > <6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
> > <6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
> > <6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
> > <6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
> > 
> > If I roll back this driver to before this change with 2.6.24.2 it works:
> 
> Hrm... and we need those patches for blades that have a sil680
> controller with no working PIO on the PCI host...
> 
> That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or specs) who
> can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
> 
> I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one to me
> I could do more investigation.

Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server 
suffice?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Alan Cox]

> > That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or specs) who
> > can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
> > 
> > I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one to me
> > I could do more investigation.
> 
> Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server 
> suffice?

It says clearly in the code where to start. See the FIXME notes in both
libata-sff and libata-core about MMIO. Neither the DMA transfer start or
the probe SRST sequence are correct with MMIO posting and this hasn't
been fixed as I pointed out was needed when I originally NAKked the
change.

Without those being fixed (especially SRST) on any device with heavy PCI
posting of mmio your controller *wont work*.

Alan

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

> Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server 
> suffice?

If I can remote-reboot it, yes.

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:53 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or specs) who
> > > can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
> > > 
> > > I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one to me
> > > I could do more investigation.
> > 
> > Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server 
> > suffice?
> 
> It says clearly in the code where to start. See the FIXME notes in both
> libata-sff and libata-core about MMIO. Neither the DMA transfer start or
> the probe SRST sequence are correct with MMIO posting and this hasn't
> been fixed as I pointed out was needed when I originally NAKked the
> change.
> 
> Without those being fixed (especially SRST) on any device with heavy PCI
> posting of mmio your controller *wont work*.

The dbdma start is mostly harmless (things don't get posted for -that-
long), though I suppose it's worth fixing. Would reading back dmactl do
in that case or do you foresee any kind of side effect ? (Maybe only
doing it for MMIO ?)

As for SRST, I'm not totally confident how safe it is to read back
there while doing the reset sequence, so I'm tempted to really only
do it for MMIO and use altstat rather than ctl/stat (the later tends
to have side effects which we don't want here).

What do you think ?

The main problem from here is that I don't know whether we are using
MMIO or PIO from libata-core. Maybe I can add a host flag indicate
that such flushing is needed ?

In the meantime, Guennadi, can you check if that patch helps for you
(to see if that is indeed the problem):


diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index 004dae4..1451a52 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -3461,10 +3461,13 @@ static int ata_bus_softreset(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int devmask,
 
 	/* software reset.  causes dev0 to be selected */
 	iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
+	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
 	udelay(20);	/* FIXME: flush */
 	iowrite8(ap->ctl | ATA_SRST, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
+	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
 	udelay(20);	/* FIXME: flush */
 	iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
+	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
 
 	/* wait a while before checking status */
 	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
index 60cd4b1..81d5828 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
@@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ void ata_bmdma_start(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
 	 * FIXME: The posting of this write means I/O starts are
 	 * unneccessarily delayed for MMIO
 	 */
+	ioread8(ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr + ATA_DMA_CMD);
 }
 
 /**

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Alan Cox]

> The dbdma start is mostly harmless (things don't get posted for -that-
> long), though I suppose it's worth fixing. Would reading back dmactl do
> in that case or do you foresee any kind of side effect ? (Maybe only
> doing it for MMIO ?)

The dmactl read back should be just fine, or any other DMA register (eg
status).

> As for SRST, I'm not totally confident how safe it is to read back
> there while doing the reset sequence, so I'm tempted to really only
> do it for MMIO and use altstat rather than ctl/stat (the later tends
> to have side effects which we don't want here).

Agreed - we know some controllers crap themselves spectacularly on
anything which causes a SATA data transfer to be needed during a reset so
the status is probably safest. The fact its not fixed is because nobody
has sat down to figure out what is safe.

> The main problem from here is that I don't know whether we are using
> MMIO or PIO from libata-core. Maybe I can add a host flag indicate
> that such flushing is needed ?

Easier to add that to the ioxxxx ops I suspect (ioispio/ioismmio say) ?

Alan

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 22:27 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The dbdma start is mostly harmless (things don't get posted for -that-
> > long), though I suppose it's worth fixing. Would reading back dmactl do
> > in that case or do you foresee any kind of side effect ? (Maybe only
> > doing it for MMIO ?)
> 
> The dmactl read back should be just fine, or any other DMA register (eg
> status).
> 
> > As for SRST, I'm not totally confident how safe it is to read back
> > there while doing the reset sequence, so I'm tempted to really only
> > do it for MMIO and use altstat rather than ctl/stat (the later tends
> > to have side effects which we don't want here).
> 
> Agreed - we know some controllers crap themselves spectacularly on
> anything which causes a SATA data transfer to be needed during a reset so
> the status is probably safest. The fact its not fixed is because nobody
> has sat down to figure out what is safe.
> 
> > The main problem from here is that I don't know whether we are using
> > MMIO or PIO from libata-core. Maybe I can add a host flag indicate
> > that such flushing is needed ?
> 
> Easier to add that to the ioxxxx ops I suspect (ioispio/ioismmio say) ?

Maybe, though that will involve fixing all the arch versions which do
different things. In fact, I'm not even sure I can tell you 100% after
the fact on ppc64, I have to double check.

I'd rather stick a flag in there to be safe, also since altstatus isn't
always there (which is why I used nsect in the test patch I sent to
Guennadi). I'm pretty sure I can rely on all MMIO controllers having an
altstatus but I'd rather still make that explicit with a host flag to
avoid unintended consequences to others.

Ben.

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Tim Ellis]

On 15 Feb 2008, at 21:45, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

>
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:53 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or  
>>>> specs) who
>>>> can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send  
>>>> one to me
>>>> I could do more investigation.
>>>
>>> Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server
>>> suffice?
>>
>> It says clearly in the code where to start. See the FIXME notes in  
>> both
>> libata-sff and libata-core about MMIO. Neither the DMA transfer  
>> start or
>> the probe SRST sequence are correct with MMIO posting and this hasn't
>> been fixed as I pointed out was needed when I originally NAKked the
>> change.
>>
>> Without those being fixed (especially SRST) on any device with  
>> heavy PCI
>> posting of mmio your controller *wont work*.
>
> The dbdma start is mostly harmless (things don't get posted for -that-
> long), though I suppose it's worth fixing. Would reading back dmactl  
> do
> in that case or do you foresee any kind of side effect ? (Maybe only
> doing it for MMIO ?)
>
> As for SRST, I'm not totally confident how safe it is to read back
> there while doing the reset sequence, so I'm tempted to really only
> do it for MMIO and use altstat rather than ctl/stat (the later tends
> to have side effects which we don't want here).
>
> What do you think ?
>
> The main problem from here is that I don't know whether we are using
> MMIO or PIO from libata-core. Maybe I can add a host flag indicate
> that such flushing is needed ?
>
> In the meantime, Guennadi, can you check if that patch helps for you
> (to see if that is indeed the problem):
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 004dae4..1451a52 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -3461,10 +3461,13 @@ static int ata_bus_softreset(struct ata_port  
> *ap, unsigned int devmask,
>
> 	/* software reset.  causes dev0 to be selected */
> 	iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
> +	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
> 	udelay(20);	/* FIXME: flush */
> 	iowrite8(ap->ctl | ATA_SRST, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
> +	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
> 	udelay(20);	/* FIXME: flush */
> 	iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
> +	ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
>
> 	/* wait a while before checking status */
> 	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
> index 60cd4b1..81d5828 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ void ata_bmdma_start(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
> 	 * FIXME: The posting of this write means I/O starts are
> 	 * unneccessarily delayed for MMIO
> 	 */
> +	ioread8(ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr + ATA_DMA_CMD);
> }
>
> /**
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.


Unfortunately this patch appears to give same result as in the  
original post. Guennadi and I are looking into arranging access to a  
device. Thanks!

<7>pata_sil680 0000:00:0c.0: version 0.4.8
<6>sil680: 133MHz clock.
<6>scsi0 : pata_sil680
<6>scsi1 : pata_sil680
<6>ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18
<6>ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 irq 18

Tim

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Jeff Garzik]

Tim Ellis wrote:
> 
> On 15 Feb 2008, at 21:45, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 15:53 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>>> That's strange though. Somebody with knowledge of that HW (or 
>>>>> specs) who
>>>>> can spot something ? Could it be an issue with timing ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have HW access to this machine. If somebody could send one 
>>>>> to me
>>>>> I could do more investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Ben, would an ssh access to such a machine and to a terminal server
>>>> suffice?
>>>
>>> It says clearly in the code where to start. See the FIXME notes in both
>>> libata-sff and libata-core about MMIO. Neither the DMA transfer start or
>>> the probe SRST sequence are correct with MMIO posting and this hasn't
>>> been fixed as I pointed out was needed when I originally NAKked the
>>> change.
>>>
>>> Without those being fixed (especially SRST) on any device with heavy PCI
>>> posting of mmio your controller *wont work*.
>>
>> The dbdma start is mostly harmless (things don't get posted for -that-
>> long), though I suppose it's worth fixing. Would reading back dmactl do
>> in that case or do you foresee any kind of side effect ? (Maybe only
>> doing it for MMIO ?)
>>
>> As for SRST, I'm not totally confident how safe it is to read back
>> there while doing the reset sequence, so I'm tempted to really only
>> do it for MMIO and use altstat rather than ctl/stat (the later tends
>> to have side effects which we don't want here).
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> The main problem from here is that I don't know whether we are using
>> MMIO or PIO from libata-core. Maybe I can add a host flag indicate
>> that such flushing is needed ?
>>
>> In the meantime, Guennadi, can you check if that patch helps for you
>> (to see if that is indeed the problem):
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 004dae4..1451a52 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -3461,10 +3461,13 @@ static int ata_bus_softreset(struct ata_port 
>> *ap, unsigned int devmask,
>>
>>     /* software reset.  causes dev0 to be selected */
>>     iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
>> +    ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
>>     udelay(20);    /* FIXME: flush */
>>     iowrite8(ap->ctl | ATA_SRST, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
>> +    ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
>>     udelay(20);    /* FIXME: flush */
>>     iowrite8(ap->ctl, ioaddr->ctl_addr);
>> +    ioread16(ioaddr->nsect_addr);
>>
>>     /* wait a while before checking status */
>>     ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
>> index 60cd4b1..81d5828 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
>> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ void ata_bmdma_start(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>>      * FIXME: The posting of this write means I/O starts are
>>      * unneccessarily delayed for MMIO
>>      */
>> +    ioread8(ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr + ATA_DMA_CMD);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ben.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately this patch appears to give same result as in the original 
> post. Guennadi and I are looking into arranging access to a device. Thanks!

Yes.

Alan loves to complain about lack of MMIO flush, but in practice this is 
rarely the source of problems such as the one you describe.

But if its broken its broken, and we need to revert.  Any luck getting 
benh access to the device?

	Jeff

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> But if its broken its broken, and we need to revert.  Any luck getting benh
> access to the device?

We're working on it... We've got devices, but they have to be recovered 
with jtag first, which requires some soldering... I was told this should 
happen end of this / beginning of the next week.

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski

Re: [PATCH] libata: Add MMIO support to pata_sil680

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

> Yes.
> 
> Alan loves to complain about lack of MMIO flush, but in practice this is 
> rarely the source of problems such as the one you describe.
> 
> But if its broken its broken, and we need to revert.  Any luck getting 
> benh access to the device?
> 

Especially since reverting it will break a whole bunch of cell blades,
which wouldn't be nice (those cannot do PIO and have that controller).

In the meantime, we might "workaround" with a hack to only enable MMIO
on those cell
blades, something like:

#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
	if (machine_is(cell))
		mmio = 1;
#endif

That might get us out of the regression until we find the proper
solution ?

Cheers,
Ben.

[PATCH] Work around breakage introduced in pata_sil680 by switching it to MMIO

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

pata_sil680 is broken on Linkstation amd Kurobox HG machines since 2.6.24. 
Work around the breakage until a real fix is found.

Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>

---

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> > Yes.
> > 
> > Alan loves to complain about lack of MMIO flush, but in practice this is 
> > rarely the source of problems such as the one you describe.
> > 
> > But if its broken its broken, and we need to revert.  Any luck getting 
> > benh access to the device?
> > 
> 
> Especially since reverting it will break a whole bunch of cell blades,
> which wouldn't be nice (those cannot do PIO and have that controller).
> 
> In the meantime, we might "workaround" with a hack to only enable MMIO
> on those cell
> blades, something like:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> 	if (machine_is(cell))
> 		mmio = 1;
> #endif
> 
> That might get us out of the regression until we find the proper
> solution ?

How about the one below? I'd really like to get it in for 2.6.25 to avoid 
a second broken stable kernel on these machines.

Ben, please verify that your cell machines still work.

Thanks
Guennadi

diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_sil680.c b/drivers/ata/pata_sil680.c
index 503245a..75179ff 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/pata_sil680.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/pata_sil680.c
@@ -335,9 +335,12 @@ static int __devinit sil680_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 	};
 	const struct ata_port_info *ppi[] = { &info, NULL };
 	static int printed_version;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
 	struct ata_host *host;
 	void __iomem *mmio_base;
-	int rc, try_mmio;
+	int rc;
+#endif
+	int try_mmio;
 
 	if (!printed_version++)
 		dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &pdev->dev, "version " DRV_VERSION "\n");
@@ -350,7 +353,8 @@ static int __devinit sil680_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 			return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	if (!try_mmio)
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
+	if (!try_mmio || !machine_is(cell))
 		goto use_ioports;
 
 	/* Try to acquire MMIO resources and fallback to PIO if
@@ -396,6 +400,7 @@ static int __devinit sil680_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 				 &sil680_sht);
 
 use_ioports:
+#endif
 	return ata_pci_init_one(pdev, ppi);
 }
 

Re: [PATCH] Work around breakage introduced in pata_sil680 by switching it to MMIO

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:31:19 +0100 (CET)
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:

> pata_sil680 is broken on Linkstation amd Kurobox HG machines since 2.6.24. 
> Work around the breakage until a real fix is found.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>

Just disable the mmio patch on all systems - we know it doesn't work, we
know what work needs to be done, it should remain off for everyone until
that work is done. It should never have been merged in the first place
and I think my statement to that effect has been proven nicely.

Alan

Re: [PATCH] Work around breakage introduced in pata_sil680 by switching it to MMIO

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:36 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:31:19 +0100 (CET)
> Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > pata_sil680 is broken on Linkstation amd Kurobox HG machines since 2.6.24. 
> > Work around the breakage until a real fix is found.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> 
> Just disable the mmio patch on all systems - we know it doesn't work, we
> know what work needs to be done, it should remain off for everyone until
> that work is done. It should never have been merged in the first place
> and I think my statement to that effect has been proven nicely.

Agreed. We did some patches to work on the possible write posting
issues, and they didn't fix the problem, though they still should go in
ultimately (after more testing, I need to dig them back out of my pile).

So I think the MMIO is on standby now until we really corner what's
going on. I hope to be able to work a bit on Guennadi's setup one of
these days though I can't promise, I may instead get that SiL controller
out of a cell blade and stick it in every HW I have around see if I can
reproduce the problem. I think I have a couple different revisions even.

We need to keep it enabled for the QS20 cell blades as it's the only way
those will boot (and they happen to apparently not suffer from any
adverse effect, we've tortured them pretty deeply, could be luck due to
how the bridge works on them, or due to other workarounds we do for
horrid breakage in the PCI host bridge that end up making everything
else work too) but everybody else can stick with PIO.

Jeff, can you ask Linus to pull my patch (the one Alan just acked) that
does that in .25 ?

Cheers,
Ben.