From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: new ata_port_operations for .pmp_{read,write} ? Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:20:58 +0900 Message-ID: <47C2503A.7040308@gmail.com> References: <4730E312.3090900@navy.mil> <4737C16E.3070607@gmail.com> <4738827D.9060405@pobox.com> <4738F935.1000708@gmail.com> <47BC798F.6070900@pobox.com> <47BE17CA.6060406@rtr.ca> <47BE1833.9090501@rtr.ca> <47BE2C0C.3020801@gmail.com> <47BE2DBD.9010704@rtr.ca> <47BE2F9E.5040206@gmail.com> <47BE32B5.5020300@rtr.ca> <47BE3325.8060209@rtr.ca> <47BE4701.2030104@rtr.ca> <47BE4DFE.2030407@rtr.ca> <47BEDAF2.8000301@rtr.ca> <47BFAC06.5030805@rtr.ca> <47C116D4.1090600@gmail.com> <47C248C8.9090409@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.234]:13667 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754974AbYBYFVH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:21:07 -0500 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c48so2164226wra.23 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:21:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <47C248C8.9090409@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: IDE/ATA development list , Saeed Bishara , Jeff Garzik Mark Lord wrote: > No, the quickest solution for sata_mv, the one I apparently will now be > using, > is to just clone about 250 lines of reset/debouce/probe code from > libata-core > and change perhaps five lines of it to work around this issue plus some > chipset errata. > > What I was thinking of, before, is the SATA specification which details > use of bits in the SCR to select a PMP port. Pretty much exactly as > this chipset does it, except in the SCR rather than a proprieary port. > > But no big deal. I can clone code and not bother you any more. > In fact, some of the cloned code was already in sata_mv, and I removed > it this past week in my local working copy. I'll just restore that, > along with another big blob so that we can select pm port where needed. > > What a shame. The order is somewhat reversed here and I can understand why you're frustrated but I'm just trying to make things look right in long term, so feel free to bother me. :-) For temporary solution, I'm okay either way. I'll clean things up later when the necessary core changes are made. * Adding ->pmp_select or ->scr_pmp_rw or whatever callback to work around the current problem. * Duplicate code in sata_mv. Whichever way you go, can you please mark where it's different and why? Thanks. -- tejun