Hi Sinan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sinan Akman [mailto:si...@writeme.com] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 2:04 PM > To: Tang Yuantian-B29983 <yuantian.t...@freescale.com>; Sun York-R58495 > <york...@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 > be > moving 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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
