From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: share PIO limits among devices sharing a channel Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:36:56 +0900 Message-ID: <45B8C088.7090606@gmail.com> References: <20070125112947.GC8606@htj.dyndns.org> <20070125123030.3093fb32@localhost.localdomain> <45B8A63F.8060305@pobox.com> <45B8B0DF.4080602@gmail.com> <20070125135024.32b31a72@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.248]:50536 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965394AbXAYOhE (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:37:04 -0500 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b33so351819ana for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:37:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20070125135024.32b31a72@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Alan wrote: >>>> NAK, this is totally wrong >> Eek.. You actually said this is/was documented and relied upon all over. >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/13184/focus=14486 > > What I said (well tried to say since it was apparently vague and caused > confusion) was relied upon was the hardware being in PIO0 during probe > (because we don't call the PIO setup methods during probe/reset) and that > we decide which modes both devices are using *before* we set either of > them (which the current code appears to do correctly). This is because > the device may need to know both to apply limits - such as merging > address setup time. I see. >>> I'm curious what the motivation of this patch was? >> Hope my intentions are explained. > > Yep. I think it's a simple case of confusion about the meaning of an > email. Okay, then. We can just ignore this whole thread. Thanks for clarifying. -- tejun