[GIT,PULL] libata changes for v4.10-rc1

Hello, Linus.

* Adam added opt-in ATA command priority support.

* There are machines which hide multiple nvme devices behind an ahci
  BAR.  Dan Williams proposed a solution to force-switch the mode but
  deemed too hackishd.  People are gonna discuss the proper way to
  handle the situation in nvme standard meetings.  For now, detect and
  warn about the situation.

* Low level driver specific changes.

Thanks.

The following changes since commit 1001354ca34179f3db924eb66672442a173147dc:

  Linux 4.9-rc1 (2016-10-15 12:17:50 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/libata.git for-4.10

for you to fetch changes up to aecec8b60422118b52e3347430ba9382e57d6d76:

  ahci: warn about remapped NVMe devices (2016-12-05 14:31:24 -0500)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Manzanares (4):
      block: Add iocontext priority to request
      ata: Enabling ATA Command Priorities
      ata: ATA Command Priority Disabled By Default
      ata: set ncq_prio_enabled iff device has support

Christoph Hellwig (2):
      nvme: move NVMe class code to pci_ids.h
      ahci: warn about remapped NVMe devices

Dan Williams (1):
      ahci-remap.h: add ahci remapping definitions

Tang Yuantian (1):
      ahci: qoriq: added ls1046a platform support

Vladimir Zapolskiy (4):
      pata: imx: sort headers out
      pata: imx: set controller PIO mode with .set_piomode callback
      pata: imx: add support of setting timings for PIO modes
      pata: imx: support controller modes up to PIO4

 block/blk-core.c           |  4 ++-
 drivers/ata/ahci.c         | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/ata/ahci_qoriq.c   | 16 +++++++--
 drivers/ata/libahci.c      |  1 +
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c  | 35 +++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c  | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/ata/libata.h       |  2 +-
 drivers/ata/pata_imx.c     | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 drivers/nvme/host/pci.c    |  3 --
 include/linux/ahci-remap.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/ata.h        |  6 ++++
 include/linux/blkdev.h     | 14 ++++++++
 include/linux/libata.h     |  5 +++
 include/linux/pci_ids.h    |  2 ++
 14 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/ahci-remap.h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:32:09PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Linus.
> 
> * Adam added opt-in ATA command priority support.
> 
> * There are machines which hide multiple nvme devices behind an ahci
>   BAR.  Dan Williams proposed a solution to force-switch the mode but
>   deemed too hackishd.  People are gonna discuss the proper way to
>   handle the situation in nvme standard meetings.  For now, detect and
>   warn about the situation.

I wish that was the case.  We've pretty much agreed that we'll want
to implement it as a virtual PCIe root bridge, similar to Intels other
"innovation" VMD that we work around that way.  But Intel management
has apparently decided that they don't want to spend more cycles on
this now that Lenovo has an optional BIOS that doesn't force this
broken mode anymore, and no one outside of Intel has enough information
to implement something like this.

So for now I guess this warning is it, until Intel reconsideres and
spends resources on fixing up the damage their Chipset people caused.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I wish that was the case.  We've pretty much agreed that we'll want
> to implement it as a virtual PCIe root bridge, similar to Intels other
> "innovation" VMD that we work around that way.  But Intel management
> has apparently decided that they don't want to spend more cycles on
> this now that Lenovo has an optional BIOS that doesn't force this
> broken mode anymore, and no one outside of Intel has enough information
> to implement something like this.
> 
> So for now I guess this warning is it, until Intel reconsideres and
> spends resources on fixing up the damage their Chipset people caused.

Dang, ah well, this is it then.

Thanks for explaining the situation.