From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.6.38-rc7] Revert "libata: ahci_start_engine compliant to AHCI spec"
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:25:59 -0400
Message-ID: <17610.1305915959@localhost>
References: <201105120025.34531.rjw@sisk.pl> <20633.1305565337@localhost> <BANLkTin7NgUMXSVyKn6P0TCrFZ5uaaRL1w@mail.gmail.com> <201105182144.37713.rjw@sisk.pl> <BANLkTimZ9pe-FhkJYHTG1Jx8MUPrMHSFbA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim9_1Xt8oE4awbCO1iKUW96YUOv_A@mail.gmail.com> <10124.1305906020@localhost> <20110520154341.GL31426@htj.dyndns.org>
            <BANLkTi=iNjWsaYCJqP057FkhAXtab5nS=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1305915959_2669P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:48200 "EHLO
	lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S934878Ab1ETS0L (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 20 May 2011 14:26:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 May 2011 10:02:56 PDT."
             <BANLkTi=iNjWsaYCJqP057FkhAXtab5nS=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Jian Peng <jipeng2005@gmail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Michael Leun <lkml20100708@newton.leun.net>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

--==_Exmh_1305915959_2669P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Fri, 20 May 2011 10:02:56 PDT, Jian Peng said:
> --20cf307f38f6d842a904a3b81730

> You are both right that adding this majic 5ms delay at this place should not
> be the final solution.
> 
> If this magic 5ms delay works on other affected systems, I plan to post a
> new patch that inside ahci_start_engine(), still perform same check, and
> show warning message if failed, but will set a flag, then still set START
> bit, and if there is such failure flag, add 5ms delay.
> 
> Valdis, could you apply the following patch and retest it?

I should be able to do that this weekend.  To clarify - should this be with the
problem commit 270dac35c26433d06a89150c51e75ca0181ca7e4 applied, or reverted?


--==_Exmh_1305915959_2669P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQFN1rI3cC3lWbTT17ARAholAKDXyBVpYZyAWJ8gqpx+ye9glWfMIwCeLr/V
nxlCRWYPv2DT4GrXxJPDTqg=
=pEhp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_1305915959_2669P--