* ata_port->device[] question
@ 2005-11-15 21:33 Randy.Dunlap
2005-11-16 15:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2005-11-16 15:16 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2005-11-15 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jgarzik; +Cc: linux-ide
libata-core.c, around line 1299, says:
static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(const struct ata_port *ap)
{
return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device->id)));
}
That's the same as this: (right?)
return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device[0]->id)));
~~~
and is this intentional?
I.e., always using device[0] for this bridge check?
Just curious.
thanks,
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: ata_port->device[] question
2005-11-15 21:33 ata_port->device[] question Randy.Dunlap
@ 2005-11-16 15:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2005-11-16 15:16 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz @ 2005-11-16 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: jgarzik, linux-ide
On 11/15/05, Randy.Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
>
> libata-core.c, around line 1299, says:
>
> static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(const struct ata_port *ap)
> {
> return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device->id)));
> }
>
> That's the same as this: (right?)
>
> return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device[0]->id)));
> ~~~
>
> and is this intentional?
> I.e., always using device[0] for this bridge check?
Yes, this is only valid for SATA (=> only primary device).
Bartlomiej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: ata_port->device[] question
2005-11-15 21:33 ata_port->device[] question Randy.Dunlap
2005-11-16 15:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
@ 2005-11-16 15:16 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2005-11-16 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: linux-ide
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> libata-core.c, around line 1299, says:
>
> static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(const struct ata_port *ap)
> {
> return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device->id)));
> }
>
> That's the same as this: (right?)
>
> return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(ap->device[0]->id)));
> ~~~
>
> and is this intentional?
> I.e., always using device[0] for this bridge check?
really it should be ap->device[0].id if I'm not mistaken
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-16 15:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-15 21:33 ata_port->device[] question Randy.Dunlap
2005-11-16 15:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2005-11-16 15:16 ` Jeff Garzik
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).