Unicorn Chang wrote:
> @@ -5336,11 +5383,21 @@ int ata_device_add(const struct ata_prob
> ap->ioaddr.cmd_addr,
> ap->ioaddr.ctl_addr,
> ap->ioaddr.bmdma_addr,
> - ent->irq);
> + irq);
>
> ata_chk_status(ap);
> host_set->ops->irq_clear(ap);
> ata_eh_freeze_port(ap); /* freeze port before requesting IRQ */
> +
> + if (ap->ioaddr.irq){
> + /* obtain nonshared per-port irq */
> + rc = request_irq(irq, ent->port_ops->irq_handler, 0, DRV_NAME, ap);
> + if (rc) {
> + dev_printk(KERN_ERR, dev, "irq %lu request failed: %d\n",
> + irq, rc);
> + goto err_out;
> + }
> + }
> count++;
> }
>
> @@ -5348,12 +5405,14 @@ int ata_device_add(const struct ata_prob
> goto err_free_ret;
>
> /* obtain irq, that is shared between channels */
> - rc = request_irq(ent->irq, ent->port_ops->irq_handler, ent->irq_flags,
> - DRV_NAME, host_set);
> - if (rc) {
> - dev_printk(KERN_ERR, dev, "irq %lu request failed: %d\n",
> - ent->irq, rc);
> - goto err_out;
> + if (ent->irq){
> + rc = request_irq(ent->irq, ent->port_ops->irq_handler, ent->irq_flags,
> + DRV_NAME, host_set);
> + if (rc) {
> + dev_printk(KERN_ERR, dev, "irq %lu request failed: %d\n",
> + ent->irq, rc);
> + goto err_out;
> + }
> }
I'm sorry, but any patch that adds additional request_irq() calls to
libata in this manner will be NAK'd.
The current location of request_irq() inside libata is a design mistake
on my part, and this sort of change compounds that mistake.
An improved control flow, which moves request_irq() from libata-core to
LLDD, might be:
* LLDD initializes the host controller, in driver.c (as it does today)
* LLDD, perhaps via bmdma helpers, makes certain that no pending
interrupt conditions exist (many LLDDs do this today)
* LLDD, perhaps via bmdma helpers, calls request_irq()
- problem: need to pass it a useful pointer
-> move drivers to familiar model where LLDD allocs
host_set and ports, does <stuff>, then
registers host_set/ports with system
* LLDD proceeds to register itself with libata core
Overall, the current libata request_irq() design restricts us from doing
a better job with legacy ports (your case), and also prevents doing
advanced stuff with MSI-X and other approaching technologies.
Jeff
-
: 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
