From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH libata #promise-sata-pata] sata_promise: unbreak 20619 Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:46:13 -0500 Message-ID: <45A1A265.20504@garzik.org> References: <200701062031.l06KV64q022234@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]:51497 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030430AbXAHBqP (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:46:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200701062031.l06KV64q022234@harpo.it.uu.se> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mikael Pettersson Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mikael Pettersson wrote: > The PATA support patch for sata_promise appears, from > code inspection, to break the PATA-only 20619 chip. > > The patch removes the SATA flag from the TX2plus SATA+PATA > boards' common flags, with the intention of adding it back > via the _port_flags[] entries for those boards' SATA ports. > > However, it unconditionally marks ports 0 and 1 as SATA > for all boards. This causes the 20619 (TX4000) to announce > its first two PATA ports as SATA | ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS. > > I don't have a TX4000 so I don't know what the actual > consequences of this bug are, but surely this isn't Ok. > > Fixed by moving the port 0 and 1 settings as SATA into > the TX4 and TX2plus specific initialisation code. > > Signed-off-by: Mikael Pettersson Given that I agree with your RFC, this means I can drop all these #promise-sata-pata patches, and kill the #promise-sata-pata branch soon, right? Jeff