From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH] resolve collision of generic ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG and driver specific flag Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:02:11 +0300 Message-ID: <55280213.9000601@cogentembedded.com> References: <201504092009.08703.ronny.hegewald@online.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:33400 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753859AbbDJRCP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:02:15 -0400 Received: by layy10 with SMTP id y10so17690437lay.0 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:02:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201504092009.08703.ronny.hegewald@online.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Ronny Hegewald , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 04/09/2015 11:09 PM, Ronny Hegewald wrote: > The patch "libata: allow sata_sil24 to opt-out of tag ordered submission" > (72dd299d5039a336493993dcc63413cf31d0e662) introduces a regression with the > sata_sil24 driver. > The new flag ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG accidentially uses the same bit as Accidentally. > SIL24_FLAG_PCIX_IRQ_WOC in the driver. This activates code for Silicon Image > 3132, which is only suppossed to run under 3124. Supposed. > ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG is only used in sata_sil24 and is planned to be removed soon, > so lets just use another bit for the flag in sata_sil24. Actually, ATA_FLAG_LOWTAG has been removed in the 'for-next' branch, so this patch is no longer needed. Moreover, the newly assigned flag clashes with the new ATA_FLAG_SATA_PORT. > Signed-off-by: Ronny Hegewald [...] MBR, Sergei