From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: ata_pio_need_iordy vs. CF spec. V4.1 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:02:46 +0300 Message-ID: <492AFA56.9010508@ru.mvista.com> References: <492AE6FA.5000809@caviumnetworks.com> <20081124174521.491e727b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:6487 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751682AbYKXTCt (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:02:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081124174521.491e727b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: David Daney , IDE/ATA development list Alan Cox wrote: >>Table 22 on page 51 of CF Specification Rev. 4.1 indicates that iordy is >>not supported in PIO5 and PIO6. This seems to be in conflict with the >>code in ata_pio_need_iordy, which asserts that it is mandatory in any >>mode greater than PIO2. >>Which is correct? Or am I misreading something? > The ATA spec says that modes > PIO2 requires IORDY > The CFI spec does indeed say PIO5/6 do not use IORDY so probably you > should tweak that function at least for CFA devices. Only for them because there probably used to be PIO5 hard disks in the wild and they hardly ignored IORDY... > Alan MBR, Sergei