Re: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> -	msleep(150);
> +	/* wait a while before checking status */
> +	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
[...]
> -	msleep(150);
> +	/* wait a while before checking status */
> +	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>  
>  	/* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
>  	 * the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
> @@ -3543,8 +3583,8 @@ int sata_std_hardreset(struct ata_port *
>  		return 0;
>  	}
>  
> -	/* wait a while before checking status, see SRST for more info */
> -	msleep(150);
> +	/* wait a while before checking status */
> +	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>  
>  	rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
[...]
> -	msleep(150);
> +	/* wait a while before checking status */
> +	ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>  
>  	/* Before we perform post reset processing we want to see if
>  	 * the bus shows 0xFF because the odd clown forgets the D7
> Index: work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
> ===================================================================
> --- work.orig/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
> +++ work/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c
> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static int inic_hardreset(struct ata_por
>  		struct ata_taskfile tf;
>  
>  		/* wait a while before checking status */
> -		msleep(150);
> +		ata_wait_after_reset(ap, deadline);
>  
>  		rc = ata_wait_ready(ap, deadline);
[...]

The main thing that bothers me is not the increase in delay, but the 
fact that this create converts a delay/Status-poll sequence into a 
delay/Status-poll/Status-poll sequence.

ata_wait_after_reset() immediately before ata_wait_ready() seems highly 
redundant.  Why not just poll Status once?

	Jeff