Hello. Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Index: b/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c =================================================================== --- a/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c +++ b/drivers/ide/pci/cmd64x.c @@ -695,9 +695,10 @@ static void __devinit init_hwif_cmd64x(i hwif->swdma_mask = 0x07; if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_643) - hwif->ultra_mask = 0x80; + hwif->ultra_mask = 0x00; if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_646) - hwif->ultra_mask = (class_rev > 0x04) ? 0x07 : 0x80; + hwif->ultra_mask = + (class_rev == 0x05 || class_rev == 0x07) ? 0x07 : 0x00; if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_CMD_648) hwif->ultra_mask = 0x1f;
Hm, well, this doesn't look consistent with the changes in other drivers. This driver asks for explicit hwif->cds->ultra_mask initializers, IMO... You'd only have to check for PCI-646 revisions < 5 then...
reworked
Thanks. :-)
Index: b/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c =================================================================== --- a/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c +++ b/drivers/ide/pci/piix.c default: if (!hwif->udma_four) hwif->udma_four = piix_cable_detect(hwif);
This one also certainly asks for explicit hwif->cds->ultra_mask initializers... Thus almost all of this switch statement could go away...
Alas doing it now would make the nice DECLARE_PIIX_DEV() macro go away
Why? Could add another argument to that macro...
(=> a lot of duplicated code)... could be done in the future...
Yes, of course.
Thanks, Bart
MBR, Sergei - 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
