Re: [PATCH] cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:31:36 David Miller wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:48:02 +0200
> 
> > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > This is obviously correct regression fix.  The only problem is that
> > it cannot be applied under the new rigid policy before somebody with
> > the hardware verifies it.  This will only result in a needless delay
> > in this case (IMHO a common sense works better than rigid policies).
> 
> Such hard rules don't apply to regression fixes.  Patch
> applied, thanks.
> 
> But I certainly would have required some positive testing for the
> commit which introduced this problem!

You can from now on.

> I've added some verbosity to the commit message, so that people can
> track where the problem was introduced, and exactly how this problem
> arose, like so:
> 
> cs5520: add missing IRQ setup for the second port

> This fixes a regression introduced by commit
> 86ccf37c6acd74cf7e4b7751ee045de19943c5a0 ("ide: remove pciirq argument
> from ide_pci_setup_ports()")
> 
> ide_pci_setup_ports() would loop over the available ports, one
> by one, recording IRQ numbers increasingly from the one passed
> in as "pciirq".  The conversion only assigned the initial port's
> IRQ, 14, but left the second one not setup.
> 
> [ Make commit message more verbose -DaveM ]

I didn't remember which commit was it so I didn't include it in the patch
description.  This is certainly not the commit above (if you're making such,
changes please make sure that you actually understand the code -- you have
it easy now as it is orders of magnitude simpler than it was few years ago).

Looking a bit more in depth it could be that it was never a regression
and I'm no longer sure that the change is correct (sorry for that, I was
blinded by code in pata_cs5520.c).

> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>