From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa() Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:06:12 +0300 Message-ID: <497B9EE4.8010807@ru.mvista.com> References: <200901231615.38011.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ns2.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:32538 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751209AbZAXXGS (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:06:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200901231615.38011.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: bzolnier@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, gdu@mns.spb.ru 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 > > --- > 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