From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: libata bridge limits Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:26:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20080826142633.GI20055@kernel.dk> References: <20080826072841.GS20055@kernel.dk> <20080826104237.4b1cd7f6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20080826101713.GW20055@kernel.dk> <48B3F7C3.6010600@wasp.net.au> <20080826124816.GA20055@kernel.dk> <48B3FD40.3000109@kernel.org> <20080826130657.GB20055@kernel.dk> <20080826135822.GE20055@kernel.dk> <48B4113D.8070608@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from [93.163.65.50] ([93.163.65.50]:1742 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754507AbYHZO0f (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:26:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48B4113D.8070608@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Brad Campbell , Alan Cox , jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 26 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? :-( We could make it "MTRON MSP", I think that covers both the 70xx and 75xx range. -- Jens Axboe