Indan Zupancic wrote: > Doesn't the controller generate an interrupt when it detects a harddisk? > Is it really needed to do polling? It depends on the controller but the closest thing is usually PHY status changed interrupt and PHY readiness doesn't imply device readiness. On some controllers, you can play smart and try to do these things by interrupt but polling is much more reliable for this kind of stuff. > Idea: What about implementing a sata_sil specific .check_status function, > instead of using the generic ata_check_status()? That one could check other > registers to find out what's really going on in the case ENODEV is returned > by ata_check_status(), or something like that. Yeah, if SCR registers are accessible, 0xff doesn't indicate the device isn't there, so the whole skip-0xff logic probably shouldn't apply in such cases, but we can also achieve pretty good result by just making the first reset tries a bit more aggressive. The first timeout of 10secs was chosen because most desktop drives take somewhere around 7~10 secs to spin up, so retrying before that didn't make much sense, but mobile devices usually spin up faster, so it might be worth to try one more time inbetween. -- 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
