Re: libata bridge limits

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> OK, something like this. Jeff, if you think this is fine, let me know
>> and I'll submit a proper patch with description and so on.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> index 79e3a8e..879ceac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
>> @@ -2100,6 +2100,10 @@ retry:
>>  static inline u8 ata_dev_knobble(struct ata_device *dev)
>>  {
>>      struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
>> +
>> +    if (ata_dev_blacklisted(dev) & ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK)
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>>      return ((ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA) && (!ata_id_is_sata(dev->id)));
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -3998,6 +4002,9 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry 
>> ata_device_blacklist [] = {
>>      { "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB00",      ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
>>      { "TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S202N", "SB01",      ATA_HORKAGE_IVB, },
>>  
>> +    /* Devices that do not need bridging limits applied */
>> +    { "Mtron",        NULL,        0, },

Err.. shouldn't there be an ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK on that line?
Or did Jens already repost a corrected patch..

>> +
>>      /* End Marker */
>>      { }
>>  };
>> diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
>> index 225bfc5..9f194c0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
>> @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ enum {
>>      ATA_HORKAGE_IPM        = (1 << 7),    /* Link PM problems */
>>      ATA_HORKAGE_IVB        = (1 << 8),    /* cbl det validity bit 
>> bugs */
>>      ATA_HORKAGE_STUCK_ERR    = (1 << 9),    /* stuck ERR on next 
>> PACKET */
>> +    ATA_HORKAGE_BRIDGE_OK    = (1 << 10),    /* no bridge limits */
>>  
>>       /* DMA mask for user DMA control: User visible values; DO NOT
>>          renumber */
> 
> 
> This one seems fine to me...
..