Re: [PATCH 15/15] libata: consider disabled devices in ata_dev_xfermask()

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> ata_bus_probe() now marks failed devices properly and leaves
>> meaningful transfer mode masks.  This patch makes ata_dev_xfermask()
>> consider disable devices when determining PIO mode to avoid violating
>> device selection timing.
>>
>> While at it, move port-wide resttriction out of device iteration loop
>> and try to make the function look a bit prettier.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/scsi/libata-core.c |   34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> 523b496b7614981773c2c14259bbca4a7ba3a3e8
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c b/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
>> index ac2ca31..0d72792 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libata-core.c
>> @@ -2902,23 +2902,34 @@ static void ata_dev_xfermask(struct ata_
>>      unsigned long xfer_mask;
>>      int i;
>>  
>> -    xfer_mask = ata_pack_xfermask(ap->pio_mask, ap->mwdma_mask,
>> -                      ap->udma_mask);
>> +    xfer_mask = ata_pack_xfermask(ap->pio_mask,
>> +                      ap->mwdma_mask, ap->udma_mask);
>> +
>> +    /* Apply cable rule here.  Don't apply it early because when
>> +     * we handle hot plug the cable type can itself change.
>> +     */
>> +    if (ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_PATA40)
>> +        xfer_mask &= ~(0xF8 << ATA_SHIFT_UDMA);
> 
> ACK, though I wonder if moving the above code to its current position 
> violates "early" described in the comment.
> 

I think not. AFAICS the 'early' in the comment points ata_dev_xfermask() 
function itself.

Alan?

-- 
tejun