Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>> Don't freeze port unconditionally. You'll end up hardresetting on every
>> error. Just make sure DMA engine is stopped and the controller is in a
>> sane state. If that fails, then, the port should be frozen.
Sorry, s/hardresetting/resetting/
> I'm looking into this now, but so far it seems only a reset
> (what Promise calls software reset, I don't know if libata
> considers it a soft or hard reset) of the ATA channel will do.
Errors properly reported by the device shouldn't cause resets. Think
about ATAPI check condition.
>>> + hardreset = NULL;
>>> + if (sata_scr_valid(ap)) {
>>> + ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET;
>> Why always force HARDRESET?
>
> I based that on sata_sil24:
>
> if (sil24_init_port(ap)) {
> ata_eh_freeze_port(ap);
> ehc->i.action |= ATA_EH_HARDRESET;
> }
>
> I interpreted the ATA_EH_HARDRESET as being required due to
> the ata_eh_freeze_port(), but perhaps it's only there because
> sil24_init_port() returned failure?
Yeap, that's right.
> A different issue, but of practical importance, is which
> libata branch I should base the EH conversion on: #upstream
> or #ALL? Andrew Morton's -mm kernels include the ALL patches,
> but they in turn include the promise-sata-pata patches, and
> there is a conflict between the PATA patch and the EH conversion.
> Currently my EH conversion is based on #upstream, and I've ported
> the PATA patch to apply on top of it.
#upstream, It is. #ALL is merge of all libata-dev devel branches and no
development work occurs there directly.
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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
