On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:28:30 +0000
Alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If we are doing a PIO setup for a CFA card and it blows up with a device
> error then assume it is an older CFA card which doesn't support this
> rather than failing the device out of existance.
>
> Stands seperate to the quieting patch but that is obviously useful with
> this change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.vanilla-2.6.20-rc6-mm3/drivers/ata/libata-core.c linux-2.6.20-rc6-mm3/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> --- linux.vanilla-2.6.20-rc6-mm3/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-01-31 14:20:39.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.20-rc6-mm3/drivers/ata/libata-core.c 2007-02-01 16:14:01.000000000 +0000
> @@ -2404,6 +2460,10 @@
> dev->flags |= ATA_DFLAG_PIO;
>
> err_mask = ata_dev_set_xfermode(dev);
> + /* Old CFA may refuse this command, which is just fine */
> + if (dev->xfer_shift == ATA_SHIFT_PIO && ata_id_is_cfa(dev->id))
> + err_mask &= ~AC_ERR_DEV;
> +
> if (err_mask) {
> ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_ERR, "failed to set xfermode "
> "(err_mask=0x%x)\n", err_mask);
This hunk is already in
libata-fix-hopefully-all-the-remaining-problems-with.patch. Should I drop
libata-fix-hopefully-all-the-remaining-problems-with.patch?
If its presence can affect the validity of testing these four patches then
perhaps yes..
-
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
