Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa()

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Hello.

Alan Cox wrote:

>>>The word 82 validity bit is not sufficient as that bit is itself not

>>    There's no word 82 validity bits, its validity bits are in word 83.

> Word 83 sorry - I seem to have 82 and 83 bit flipped in my brain, not
> good for ATA work ;)
> 
>>>defined in ATA < 3. Otherwise the change looks correct.

>>    Well, then we need to fix every case of using *only* the validity bits in 
>>ata.h. 

> No reason to go removing ones that are correct

    You've just effectively claimed them to be incorrect with your claim what 
validity bits are not sufficient and ATA revision must be checked. Check the 
source please -- I wouldn't have dropped the revision check if the rest of the 
inlines that check word 82/82 were using it.

MBR, Sergei