From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] select ATA_SFF Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:36:40 +0400 Message-ID: <480DE9E8.2070809@ru.mvista.com> References: <20080421213147.GH2633@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <480DE3C4.5@ru.mvista.com> <480DE6F5.8060403@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:29344 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756803AbYDVNhR (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:37:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <480DE6F5.8060403@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jeff Garzik , Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: >> ADMA is not SFF-8038i compilant, it's the IDE DMA spec of its own. >> And I'm seeing references to libata-sff.c... confusing. > In libata, SFF is used for controllers which have TF interface I can't figure out to which SFF specs this refers then... althought I'm not really familiar with them well enough. > and BMDMA > is used for the BMDMA part of SFF-8038i. Is there any other part in it? One concerning PCI? > I think this is the source of confusion here. Yes. >> Looks like there's no clean separation within libata-sff.c itself >> between SFF-8038i (BMDMA spec) and IDE registers itself -- that >> confused me: at first I thought there's a big issue with a patch. :-/ >> Jeff, Tejun, what "sff" in the file name actually means? Isn't it >> strange that the drivers lacking DMA support or not really compliant >> with SFF-8038i have to link with this file? > Maybe it should be libata-tf and libata-bmdma, but sff (sans bmdma) > and bmdma is acceptable, hopefully, right? What's sff sans bmdma? > Thanks. WBR, Sergei