Re: [patch 1/1] LIBATA: Allow devices without IRQ specified to fall back

[Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:58:23PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:50:00 +0100
> Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:14:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Does anyone know if the ALi M5229 actually exists outside of one of
> > > > the M1543 bridges?
> > > 
> > > Yes - it exists in various forms in all sorts of ALi/ULi chipset products.
> > > 
> > > > Note, this hardly seems to be a board-quirk, it is more of a device
> > > > quirk...
> > > 
> > > Your description so far is of "device not put in a valid configuration
> > > according to the spec"  - that seems to me to be board problems.
> > 
> > No, the configuration is correct, you cannot assign this device an
> > PCI IRQ when it is embedded in the M1543 bridge. The bridge itself
> > has other configuration registers that specify where the IDE IRQs
> > get routed.
> 
> You aren't listening: "according to spec" - there is a specification for
> how legacy and native mode ATA controllers function and should be
> configured. You are describing a situation which appears to be outside
> that spec entirely.

Ok, so this controller is not performing to the IRQ portion of the PCI
IDE specification, but is this any reason to force it back into legacy
mode?

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.