From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.30-rc2 2/2] palm_bk3710: UDMA performance fix Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:48:26 +0200 Message-ID: <200904232248.26284.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <200904201841.10989.david-b@pacbell.net> <200904222305.54820.bzolnier@gmail.com> <200904221529.23427.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com ([209.85.220.158]:51181 "EHLO mail-fx0-f158.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756039AbZDWUoZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:44:25 -0400 Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so769369fxm.37 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:44:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200904221529.23427.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, DaVinci On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:29:23 David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > By the way ... what about the first patch, > > > which removed accesses to all those non-existent > > > registers and bitfields? > > > > I didn't see any discussion on it and it looked less urgent / more risky > > (it is not uncommon for documentation to lack some data) than patch #2. > > It's uncommon for TI's documentation to be that far off, > for that long, though. "Lacking" docs for 50% of the > registers, for several years ... doesn't make sense. > > The current reset handling is clearly broken: the docs > are quite explicit that the controller doesn't drive the > reset signal, it's got to be done through a GPIO. The > board designs match that part of the docs. The code is > thus contrary to *all* other documentation. > > Early DaVinci drivers sometimes exhibited a flagrant > disregard for chip documentation. This driver is from > about that era. Maybe it started from prototypes using > the a different controller design, for example. > > > > Should it also go upstream for 2.6.30? > > I can't say either patch would be urgent for 2.6.30, > but of course it's good that bugfixes merge ASAP. > > Since we're only at RC3, I'd be inclined to push both > up right now. If we were at RC6 or so, I'd hold off > till the next merge window. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I applied the patch to ide-2.6.git/for-linus.