On Sun, May 28 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> >Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>On Sun, May 28 2006, Mark Lord wrote:
> >>>>
> >..
> >>>> int ata_device_resume(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_device *dev)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED) {
> >>>>+ ata_busy_wait(ap, ATA_BUSY | ATA_DRQ, 200000);
> >>>> ap->flags &= ~ATA_FLAG_SUSPENDED;
> >>>> ata_set_mode(ap);
> >>>
> >>>Sorry for the unresponsiveness, still away and internet connectivity
> >>>spotty. Just tested the above, and it works for me! I think Marks
> >>>analisys wrt DRQ is completely correct and this validates it.
> >>
> >>Does your box work without ATA_DRQ?
> >
> >Without ATA_DRQ, we're back to the original Linus one-liner,
> >which Jens said did NOT work for him on Saturday.
>
> Indeed, but nowhere in the ATA Status printks did I ever see the DRQ bit
> asserted. It was all 80/50/50.
Mark is right, ATA_BUSY alone does _not_ work for me. I agree it's a
little odd based on the printk output, it must be a timing thing.
--
Jens Axboe
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
