Re: libata bridge limits

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> OK, something like this. Jeff, if you think this is fine, let me know
> and I'll submit a proper patch with description and so on.

FWIW, looks good to me.  Just one small concern below...

> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> index 79e3a8e..879ceac 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> @@ -2100,6 +2100,10 @@ retry:
>  static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(struct ata_device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
> +
> +	if (ata_dev_blacklisted(dev) & ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(dev->id)));
>  }
>  
> @@ -3998,6 +4002,9 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>  	{ "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB00",	  ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
>  	{ "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB01",	  ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
>  
> +	/* Devices that do not need bridging limits applied */
> +	{ "Mtron",		NULL,		0, },

"Mtron" looks like a broad match but then again for some reason many
non-traditional ATA vendors don't like to give descriptive
identifications to their devices.  Any chance there is something more to
match?  :-(

Thanks.

-- 
tejun