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

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

Hello, I wrote:
> When checking for CFA feature set support, ata_id_is_cfa() tests bit 2 in word
> 82 of the identify data instead the word 83.  It also checks the ATA revision
> in the  word 80 instead of usual validity check for the words 82-83 -- word 83
> bit 14 set, bit 15 cleared.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
>
> ---
> I'm not sure who should queue this patch... it's against Linus' tree.
>
>  include/linux/ata.h |    5 ++---
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/ata.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/ata.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/ata.h
> @@ -734,9 +734,8 @@ static inline int ata_id_is_cfa(const u1
>  	if (id[ATA_ID_CONFIG] == 0x848A)	/* Standard CF */
>  		return 1;
>  	/* Could be CF hiding as standard ATA */
> -	if (ata_id_major_version(id) >= 3 &&
> -	    id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_1] != 0xFFFF &&
> -	   (id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_1] & (1 << 2)))
> +	if ((id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_2] & 0xC000) == 0x4000 &&
> +	    (id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_2] & (1 << 2)))
>  		return 1;
>  	return 0;
>  }

   Jeff, Bart, I've changed my mind about recasting this patch as Alan 
has requested, as I do consider it correct now. The version check should 
be unnecessary since I'm adding the validity bits check (hte fact that 
ata_id_major_complex() is quite cumbesome way of checking the minumum 
revision # -- this can be done with a single comparison instead of the 
bit scan). Note that words 64-127 were marked reserved, and must be set 
to 0 since ATA-1. Have your say please -- do I still need to recast the 
patch?

MBR, Sergei