From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-core More robust parsing for multi_count(v5)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:13:52 -0400
Message-ID: <49C39690.6090802@rtr.ca>
References: <49C1047D.4000008@rtr.ca> <49C11A0C.3070502@rtr.ca> <49C11ED4.2030307@rtr.ca> <49C19087.5000307@gmail.com> <49C190F1.7010202@kernel.org> <49C28133.8050401@rtr.ca> <49C281A5.5080404@rtr.ca> <49C2D642.90706@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:47059 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751060AbZCTNOA (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:14:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: <49C2D642.90706@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>

Tejun,

I need a way to limit the multi_count to a specific maximum
value for sata_mv.  ISTR that some PATA chips may also have
an upper hardware limit on multi_count.

Generally, "8" is safe for all chipsets.  Going above that
requires knowledge of what the chipset can tolerate.

How about a u8 multi_count_max field in the ata_host struct?
Use 0xff for "multi_count not allowed", and anything else
in there as an upper limit for the chipset.

???