From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide/libata: fix ata_id_is_cfa() Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:41:27 +0300 Message-ID: <497E1FF7.9000900@ru.mvista.com> References: <200901231615.38011.sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com> <497B9EE4.8010807@ru.mvista.com> <497E0548.80904@ru.mvista.com> <20090126190801.7d198246@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E0F76.6020606@ru.mvista.com> <20090126193550.27eef301@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E12BC.1080809@ru.mvista.com> <20090126195430.3a8aa1ce@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <497E1700.8090206@ru.mvista.com> <497E191A.1040902@pobox.com> <497E1BB8.8010408@ru.mvista.com> <20090126203319.783b0d2d@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 h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:4935 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754837AbZAZUk5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:40:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090126203319.783b0d2d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Jeff Garzik , bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, gdu@mns.spb.ru Alan Cox wrote: >>totally wrong in that part from the very start -- CF devices don't report ATA >>standard support in word 80, that's forbidden (!) by the CF specs since at >>least 2.1. > And the ATA world says that if word 80 doesn't report any standards then > the word is potentially undefined.... It's all your fantasy this time. :-D Do start reading the specs attentively. All ATA standards only have that if bits 14:15 are not 1:0, the words are not valid (as a variant, if the word is 0 or 0xFFFF). > welcome to PC hell I've started on PCs, and spent "the best years of my life" with them -- no need to welcome me. :-) > Perhaps the best we can do is to test > word 80 == 0 && word 83 bit set && word 83 valid > Fortunately the use is almost entirely to print the right CFA/ATA string > at boot ? What about PIO/DMA modes? > Now Sergei if you'd said that explicitly (or if you did before I didn't > see it) it would have been a bit simpler to work out why you were arguing > the needed for these changes. If you think that I now have plenty of time to look into all the CF and ATA standard, you are very wrong. However, you caused me to lose much time on that pointless argument... > Alan MBR, Sergei