From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Liu <r63238@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:48 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Merge code duplication in ata.h
	and	libata.h
In-Reply-To: <1206945359-9555-1-git-send-email-tor@excito.com>
References: <1206945359-9555-1-git-send-email-tor@excito.com>
Message-ID: <1206945948.3679.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de


> -       fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_SIZE * blkcnt);
> +       fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE * blkcnt);
>         return blkcnt;
>  }
> 
> @@ -658,7 +659,7 @@ static u32 fsl_sata_rw_cmd_ext(int dev, u32 start,
> u32 blkcnt, u8 *buffer, int i
>         cfis->sector_count_exp = (blkcnt >> 8) & 0xff;
>         cfis->sector_count = blkcnt & 0xff;
> 
> -       fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_SIZE * blkcnt);
> +       fsl_sata_exec_cmd(sata, cfis, CMD_ATA, 0, buffer,
> ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE * blkcnt);
>         return blkcnt;


Nack.

Don't do this.

I don't think the ATA_SECT_BYTESIZE is better than
the ATA_SECT_SIZE.

The libata.h is closely than the latest linux kernel.