From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 2/3] sata_promise: new EH conversion Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:13:41 -0500 Message-ID: <457689C5.5030201@garzik.org> References: <200612060853.kB68r0Gg024641@harpo.it.uu.se> 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]:53456 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760350AbWLFJNo (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 04:13:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200612060853.kB68r0Gg024641@harpo.it.uu.se> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mikael Pettersson Cc: htejun@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:00:42 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Mikael Pettersson wrote: >>> +} >>> + >>> +static void pdc_error_handler(struct ata_port *ap) >>> +{ >>> + struct ata_eh_context *ehc = &ap->eh_context; >>> + ata_reset_fn_t hardreset; >>> + >>> + /* stop DMA, mask IRQ, don't clobber anything else */ >>> + ata_eh_freeze_port(ap); >> Don't freeze port unconditionally. You'll end up hardresetting on every >> error. Just make sure DMA engine is stopped and the controller is in a >> sane state. If that fails, then, the port should be frozen. > > I'm looking into this now, but so far it seems only a reset > (what Promise calls software reset, I don't know if libata > considers it a soft or hard reset) of the ATA channel will do. > >>> + hardreset = NULL; >>> + if (sata_scr_valid(ap)) { >>> + ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET; >> Why always force HARDRESET? > > I based that on sata_sil24: > > if (sil24_init_port(ap)) { > ata_eh_freeze_port(ap); > ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET; > } > > I interpreted the ATA_EH_HARDRESET as being required due to > the ata_eh_freeze_port(), but perhaps it's only there because > sil24_init_port() returned failure? > > A different issue, but of practical importance, is which > libata branch I should base the EH conversion on: #upstream > or #ALL? Andrew Morton's -mm kernels include the ALL patches, > but they in turn include the promise-sata-pata patches, and > there is a conflict between the PATA patch and the EH conversion. > Currently my EH conversion is based on #upstream, and I've ported > the PATA patch to apply on top of it. It's a tiered system ;-) * if at all possible, provide patches against the latest linux-2.6.git * if there are dependencies in #upstream-fixes or #upstream (i.e. I already applied some of your patches), provide patches against #upstream-fixes or #upstream #ALL is a branch that is blown away at will, and is really more of a testing and akpm sync point. Don't worry about conflicts with promise-sata-pata, I take care of those when I merge the #ALL branch together. Jeff