From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.17-rc5-git1: regression: resume from suspend(RAM) fails: libata issue Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 21:03:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4478F6D1.6090900@garzik.org> References: <200605272245.30108.axboe@suse.de> <4478D2B4.2000500@rtr.ca> <20060527223607.GE364@suse.de> <200605271848.53680.liml@rtr.ca> <20060527225316.GA1075@suse.de> <4478DC67.6050800@rtr.ca> <4478F484.4080908@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:9624 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965178AbWE1BDT (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 May 2006 21:03:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mark Lord , Jens Axboe , "zhao, forrest" , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 27 May 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> I don't object, but ata_wait_idle() is completely pointless. > > Ahh, you're right. I used it originally because I wanted just the value > for ata_ok(), and the other ata_ok() user got it that way. > > Jens - willing to test one more thing? Instead of using ata_wait_idle, > what about just > > ata_busy_wait(ap, ATA_BUSY | ATA_DRQ, 200000); > > in case your issue actually comes from DRQ being on for some strange > reason (DMA in progress for some bootup inquiry command by the bios?) Was DRQ ever actually asserted for him? Regardless, the above line is "conservative" and safe and OK. Jeff