Re: [PATCH 5/10] hpt366: remove ->init_setup

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Hello.

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

>>>* Split off hpt{374,371,366}_init() helper from init_setup_hpt{374,371,366}().

>>>* Merge init_setup_{374,372n,371,372a,302,366}() into hpt366_init_one().

>>>While at it:

>>>* Use "HPT36x" name for HPT366/HPT368 chipsets.

>>>* Add .chip_name to struct hpt_info and use it to set set d->name.

>>>* Convert .max_ultra in struct hpt_info to .udma_mask and use it to set
>>>  d->udma_mask.

>>>* Fix hpt302 to use HPT302_ALLOW_ATA133_6 define.

>>    I haven't found that change...

    After wearing better goggles, I had found it. ;-)

>  static struct hpt_info hpt302 __devinitdata = {
> +       .chip_name      = "HPT302",
>         .chip_type      = HPT302,
> -       .max_ultra      = HPT372_ALLOW_ATA133_6 ? 6 : 5,
> +       .udma_mask      = HPT302_ALLOW_ATA133_6 ? ATA_UDMA6 : ATA_UDMA5,
>         .dpll_clk       = 66,
>         .settings       = hpt37x_settings
>  };

>>>* Use the second hpt366_chipsets[] entry for HPT37x chipsets using HPT36x PCI
>>>  device ID and fix .enablebits/.host_flags for HPT36x hpt366_chipsets[] entry.

>>    Well, if you're ruining my nearly perfect desigh...

> I was just adjusting hpt366 for ->init_setup removal, the other changes

    Well, the code was looked good enough w/it although it wasn't really a 
method being called only by in the module_init() time...

> happened by the way... 8)

    I wanted to both use the newly introduced init. time 'udma_mask' field, 
and needed this later -- but somehow disliked repeating the masks, so kept the 
max UDMA mode in the 'struct hpt_info'...

>>>* Bump driver version.

>>    ... it's worth to label it 1.20. :-)

> updated

>>>+	d = hpt366_chipsets[idx];
>>>+
>>>+	d.name = /info->chip_name;
>>>+	d.udma_mask = info->udma_mask;
>>>+
>>>+	pci_set_drvdata(dev, info);
>>>+
>>>+	if (info == &hpt36x || info == &hpt374)
>>>+		dev2 = pci_get_slot(dev->bus, dev->devfn + 1);
>>>+
>>>+	if (dev2) {
>>>+		int ret;
>>>+
>>>+		pci_set_drvdata(dev2, info);
>>>+
>>>+		if (info == &hpt374)
>>>+			hpt374_init(dev, dev2);
>>>+		else {
>>>+			if (hpt36x_init(dev, dev2))
>>>+				d.host_flags |= IDE_HFLAG_BOOTABLE;
>>>+		}
>>>+
>>>+		ret = ide_setup_pci_devices(dev, dev2, &d);
>>>+		if (ret < 0)
>>>+			pci_dev_put(dev2);
>>>+		return ret;
>>>+	}
>>> 
>>>-	return d.init_setup(dev, &d);
>>>+	return ide_setup_pci_device(dev, &d);
>>> }

>>    NAK the patch because it's breaking the HPT374 code. Those chips are 
>>*signle* function, and sit in perfect copule (and why I alsway mistype in this 
>>word :o) on 2 DEVSELs behind i960.

    Sigh... I've just mixed it all up with PDC202xx chips, after looking at 
their init_setup() code -- I'm making a Promise not to do it anymore. :-)

> Please explain - there shouldn't be any behavior change for HPT374 caused
> by this patch.

> Could it be that HPT374 code was already buggy

    Hehe, we *know* that it's buggy, what we do not know is where and why. ;-)

> Bart

MBR, Sergei