From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jgarzik@pobox.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: (For review) Teach libata to tune master/slave seperately
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:40:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58cb370e0601180340v529c04fdq5dc962285a6fc1c0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1137531678.14135.105.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Hi,
Patch looks fine some comments below:
On 1/17/06, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> This also adds a filter hook which allows drives to veto modes by drive
> specific detail. This is preferable to the more obvious 'have the driver
> change the speed itself' approach because we have a combination of
> constraints some known by the driver and some (such as PHY limits) by
> the core code. We don't want drivers overriding constraints due to lack
> of knowledge and setting unsafe/invalid modes.
Yep.
> The core logic is unchanged, it's merely had a re-order and the mode
The core logic is changed (in the positive way): ata_pio_modes()
is finally used for obtaining PIO mask to be used.
Please update the patch description or make it a separate change.
The other functional change is the ordering of programming host/devices:
previously:
* program PIO for device 0 [host]
* program PIO for device 1 [host]
* program DMA for device 0 [host]
* program DMA for device 1 [host]
* program xfer mode for device 0 [device]
* program xfer mode for device 1 [device]
now:
* program PIO for device 0 [host]
* program DMA for device 0 [host]
* program xfer mode for device 0 [device]
* program PIO for device 1 [host]
* program DMA for device 1 [host]
* program xfer mode for device 0 [device]
This change is OK but I wonder what is the reason for it?
> decision is made twice instead of once only. Another important change in
> the re-order which makes driver writers life much easier for PATA is
> that both drive speeds decisions are made *before* the driver is called.
>
> This is essential to your sanity when programming the many controllers
> that do not use the device select bit to switch between address setup
> times.
>
> Tested in my patches for a while and seems to work for the combinations
> I have. Introduces no new bugs I've found but obviously piix secondary
> slave doesn't reliably work with or without this change because of the
> current piix driver bug.
I thought it was merged already (it is obviously correct)?
Thanks,
Bartlomiej
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-18 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-17 21:01 PATCH: (For review) Teach libata to tune master/slave seperately Alan Cox
2006-01-18 11:40 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz [this message]
2006-01-18 12:04 ` Alan Cox
2006-01-18 12:44 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=58cb370e0601180340v529c04fdq5dc962285a6fc1c0@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox