From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Sealey Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] libata: check for AN support Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:59:37 +0100 Message-ID: <462FC139.3040703@genesi-usa.com> References: <20070424074856.005152262@intel.com> <20070423165943.0cc67bc5.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070424090713.65657495@the-village.bc.nu> <20070424102304.GA58841@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20070424084904.61932994.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070424180552.GA17319@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20070424135327.8fe0b0ba.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070425004946.GA63747@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20070425114002.1975da48.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <462FA923.5000301@genesi-usa.com> <20070425133447.ca9000b3.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mithrandir.softwarenexus.net ([66.98.186.96]:4554 "EHLO mail.genesi-usa.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753221AbXDYU7g (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:59:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070425133447.ca9000b3.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Kristen Carlson Accardi Cc: Olivier Galibert , Alan Cox , jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, htejun@gmail.com Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:16:51 +0100 > Matt Sealey wrote: > >>> +#define ata_id_has_AN(id) \ >>> + ( (((id)[76] != 0x0000) && ((id)[76] != 0xffff)) && \ >>> + ((id)[78] & (1 << 5)) ) >> ?? >> >>> --- 2.6-git.orig/include/linux/libata.h >>> +++ 2.6-git/include/linux/libata.h >>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ enum { >>> ATA_DFLAG_CDB_INTR = (1 << 2), /* device asserts INTRQ when ready for CDB */ >>> ATA_DFLAG_NCQ = (1 << 3), /* device supports NCQ */ >>> ATA_DFLAG_FLUSH_EXT = (1 << 4), /* do FLUSH_EXT instead of FLUSH */ >>> + ATA_DFLAG_AN = (1 << 5), /* device supports Async notification */ >>> ATA_DFLAG_CFG_MASK = (1 << 8) - 1, >> Why don't the macros use the enums? It makes the code hard to read without >> painful cross-reference doesn't it? Surely (id)[76] & (ATA_DFLAG_AN) is a >> lot more readable than 1 << 5 - even if the flag is obviously that, a lot >> of values and registers can have 1 << 5 as a flag and mean a lot of different >> things. > > It's really just a coincidence that the ATA_DFLAG_AN bit is the same as the bit > in the identify device word, so this would not be appropriate. Okay, that makes sense.. I just had a bad day cross-referencing some terrible code in another project, was in the mood to nit :D -- Matt Sealey Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations