From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH pata-2.6 fix queue] aec62xx: kill speedproc() method wrapper Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:18:31 +0400 Message-ID: <465590A7.1080107@ru.mvista.com> References: <200702032309.43867.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <200705152343.12956.bzolnier@gmail.com> <464B1310.2080808@ru.mvista.com> <200705240133.03704.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:64963 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756875AbXEXNRA (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 09:17:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200705240133.03704.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>>>There's no reason to have the speedproc() method wrapper for the two quite >>>>different chip families, so just get rid of it. >>>>Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov >>>applied >> I forgot to notice/mention the side effect: there would be no speedproc() >>method installed if hwif->dma_base happens to be 0. > It doesn't sound too nice since ->autotune is always set and ->tuneproc > uses ->speedproc unconditionally (=> OOPS). Yeah, I have overlooked that -- will need to be reworked. > Looks like we really need an extra > if (atp850) > choose atp850 speedproc > else > choose atp86x speedproc Yeah, I'll add this to the initial if statement dealing with serialization. > before hwif->dma_base check... or maybe even separate ->init_hwif > methods for atp850 and atp86x. Probably doesn't worth it... > Thanks, > Bart WBR, Sergei