Re: [PATCH 4/5] sata_mv new mv_sata_hardreset handler

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Mark Lord wrote:
>>>> The MV specific part is retry-if-offline w/ lower link speed, right? 
>>>> You can do that just as well by looping outside of 
>>>> sata_link_hardreset().  
>>> ..
>>>
>>> Yes, the code already has a loop "outside of sata_link_hardreset()"
>>> for the speed errata handling.  So nothing new there.
>>>
>>> And the rest of that routine is a line-by-line clone of 
>>> ata_std_hardreset().
>>> This is smaller than what other drivers have cloned for these routines,
>>> and a lot better than the old code from sata_mv that it replaces.
>>>
>>> The comment in my patch above is just a reminder that someday we could
>>> go back in and address those things.  In *all* LLDs, not just sata_mv.
>>>
>>> I guess I'd better stop adding such comments in the future..  :)
>>>
>>> Still think it needs any changes ?
>>
>> The modularize patchset is not in libata-dev#upstream yet.  Please 
>> take a look at the following.
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tj/libata-dev.git;a=blob;f=drivers/ata/libata-core.c;h=7646523899c0bac8b06d2d0bfcde428e4583e04d;hb=731e61759c56d564322d56b9ff6f393fda1fbec4#l3533 
>>
>> I meant that you wouldn't need to copy the post-reset stuff and just 
>> could loop around new sata_link_hardreset() after the patchset.  I 
>> thought about breaking sata_link_hardreset() into two such that the 
>> post-reset part can be used separately but couldn't find any in-tree 
>> driver which would need such function.
> ..
> 
> Ah well, that's all of no use then, because sata_mv has to go upstream 
> now for 2.6.26.
> People have been waiting for this driver to improve for a very long time 
> now.
> 
> Given the time lag of the submission pipeline I'm forced to use for it,
> there likely is not enough time left to wait for another major rework
> of libata, and then rework sata_mv to match.
> 
> Basically, anything I do to sata_mv has to be tested here first,
> then broken into Jeff-size bites, fed to Marvell, approved by them,
> then posted here, then reworked according to the whims of the day,
> then resent to Marvell, reapproved by them, then reposted here, ...

No worries.  Just go ahead.  I'll juggle things later.

-- 
tejun