From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PA-RISC update to 87415
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 23:01:58 +0100
Message-ID: <58cb370e041103140121017ea1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20041103200059.GC17672@colo.lackof.org>
	 <58cb370e04110312215ee851e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20041103213351.GB23415@colo.lackof.org>
Reply-To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.201]:58450 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261935AbUKCWCI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:02:08 -0500
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a36so160956rnf
        for <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:01:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20041103213351.GB23415@colo.lackof.org>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>
Cc: matthew@wil.cx, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:33:51 -0700, Grant Grundler
<grundler@parisc-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > I only wonder about this change:
> >
> > > @@ -132,10 +212,6 @@ static void __init init_hwif_ns87415 (id
> > >         hwif->autodma = 0;
> > >         hwif->selectproc = &ns87415_selectproc;
> > >
> > > -       /* Set a good latency timer and cache line size value. */
> > > -       (void) pci_write_config_byte(dev, PCI_LATENCY_TIMER, 64);
> > > -       /* FIXME: use pci_set_master() to ensure good latency timer value */
> 
> Bartlomiej,
> two more notes:
> 1) both comments are wrong.
>   (byte write only covers LATENCY, pci_set_master is called)

?

> 2) I realize now this should have been submitted this as a seperate patch.
>    Sorry about that. I didn't review the patch today (again) as thoroughly
>    as I should have. I started glossing over it when I saw all the suckyio
>    code that I've stared at more than a few times...*sigh*
>    You want a seperate patch+changelog entry for this one or was the
>    previous email sufficient?

Please make a separate patch+changelog if this is not a problem.

Thanks.