Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>> Can you please test two patches attached in this mail? Just
> >>> quick result will be enough. If both don't work, I'll go ahead
> >>> and create a third one - which emulates the old phy hardreset
> >>> exactly as I did for softreset of vt6420.
> >> I'll.
> >>
> >> As, I've tested that using:
> >> - ata_std_prereset + ata_std_softreset didn't work
> >> - vt6420_prereset + ata_std_softreset worked
> >> - vt6420_prereset w/o ata_std_softreset didn't work
> >>
> >> I simple interdiff between your two patches makes me think the
> >> odds're higher the second will succeed but you've done some extra
> >> changes since your previous patch.
> >> I'll you tell you more about this tomorrow.
> > none of both these patches worked :-(
>
> The second didn't work? But you said the following one liner
> worked.
Worked on top of *your original patch*.
What's more,
> + return ata_bmdma_drive_eh(ap, vt6420_prereset, ata_std_softreset,
> sata_std_hardreset, ata_std_postreset);
is different from:
+ return ata_bmdma_drive_eh(ap, vt6420_prereset, ata_std_softreset,
+ NULL, ata_std_postreset);
Note also that I tested my one liner on top of 2.6.18-rc4-mm1 + your
patch whereas I tested your latest patches on top of 2.6.18-rc4-mm2
//\\
Can this make a difference?
> The second patch is essentially identical to what you did the one
> liner. Can you please check it once more? I'll prepare old-sequence
> hardreset in the meantime.
I'll.
You won't have any answer before monday though.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
