From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: Question about PATA Sil680 Bus Reset Code Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:29 +0200 Message-ID: <200707110000.30029.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <8202f4270707090946q6ae5347ascd93a2bff6c2f281@mail.gmail.com> <20070709230908.08f5c8d8@the-village.bc.nu> <46938268.4070209@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.178]:21109 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761197AbXGJWEs (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:04:48 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b32so1016694ika for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:04:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46938268.4070209@ru.mvista.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Alan Cox , Fajun Chen , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > >> I guess it's been blindly copied over form drivers/ide/pci/siimage.c... > > Yet the order of events between IDE and libata drivers is different: > the old driver's resetproc() method is called just after the twiddling the bit > on/off, the new driver calls ata_std_softreset() after the PCI config. > register manipulation. However, since all it does is set 2 read-only bits, it > should make no difference... > > >>The code indeed does seem meaningless. For the libata it could make sense to > >>set bit 2 for the hardreset -- but then sil680_error_handler() needs to be > >>turn into ata_bmdma_drive_eh(ap, ata_std_prereset, ata_std_softreset, > >>sil680_bus_reset, ata_std_postreset)... > >> For the legacy driver, this function needs to be converted to something > >>sane too... > > > I think the evidence based upon years of highly reliable siimage usage is > > that its simply not needed 8) > > I would think so as well but was not sure about the SStatus reg. read at > the end of it... Could you send a patch removing a said code? Thanks, Bart